Research Article Multiobjective Optimization of Allocated...
Transcript of Research Article Multiobjective Optimization of Allocated...
Research ArticleMultiobjective Optimization of Allocated Exchange PortfolioModel and SolutionmdashA Case Study in Iran
Mostafa Ekhtiari
Department of Industrial Management Management and Accounting Shahid Beheshti University Tehran Iran
Correspondence should be addressed to Mostafa Ekhtiari m ektiariyahoocom
Received 21 September 2013 Accepted 13 November 2013 Published 30 January 2014
Academic Editors X-L Luo and Y Shi
Copyright copy 2014 Mostafa Ekhtiari This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution Licensewhich permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited
This paper presents a triobjective model for optimization of allocated exchange portfolio The objectives of this model areminimizing risk and investment initial cost (by adopting two synchronic policies of buying and selling assets) and maximizingreturn to optimize allocated portfolios (APs) In an AP an investor by considering previous investment experiences and marketconditions selects the within portfolio assets Then considering proposed model the assets proportion of AP is optimized for alimited time horizon In optimizing a multiobjective problem of an AP risk and return objectives are measured on the basis ofstandard deviation of assets dairy return and dairy return mean within AP assets respectively We present a set of interobjectivestrade-offs along with an analysis of IranMelli bank investment in an exchange AP usingWeightedGlobal Criterion (WGC)methodwith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin to optimize the proposed model Results of WGCmodel (in all p = 1 2 andinfin) represent that USdollar exchange in comparison with other exchanges was rather the fewest exchange proportion in Iran Melli bank exchange APwhich this is consistent with Iran exchange investment policy of more concentration on other exchanges
1 Introduction
Markowitz [1] was the first one who quantified risk infinancial management He presented that finance decisionsshould be made on the basis of risk and return and finallyhe presented efficient frontier in finance decisions All pointson this line were optimal That is investor obtains minimumrisk and maximum return on a certain level of return andon a certain level of risk respectively [1] According to theMarkowitz approach risk and future returns of a portfolio arerandom variables which are controlled by the following twoparameters
(i) Portfolio return ismeasured by dairy return expectedvalue of assets
(ii) Portfolio risk is measured by standard deviation ofassets dairy return (see eg [2ndash4])
Markowitz mean-variance model was a quadratic plan-ning model by some lateral constraints [2] Roy [5] presentedan approach to determine the optimum level of risk andreturn He considered the implications of minimizing theupper bound of the chance of a dread event when the
information available about the joint probability distributionof future occurrences is confined to the first and secondmoments Sharpe [6] established portfolio scientific man-agement by his researches He introduced 120573 sensitivitycoefficient which indicates changes of stock return rate ascompared with changes of market return rate that is calledrelative risk Some of the latest works concerning portfolioselection problems are Vafaei Jahan and Akbarzadeh-T [7]Amiri et al [8] Zhang et al [9] and Li et al [10]
Importance of finance risk management significantlydeveloped from the 1970s As in that decade fall of exchangerate constancy system and oil birate crisis were seen While anumber of finance bankrupts such as the fall of internationalstock market in 1987 Mexican crisis in 1995 Asian crisis in1997 andOrange-County and Barings bank collapses in 1994the attitude to this tendency becomes strong These cases allshowed inability of available risk management tools financesystem elegance and consequences of possible finance crisis[11]
First let us have some economic definition of riskInvestment dictionary defines risk as investment potentialloss which is computable [12] Besides introducing risk as
Hindawi Publishing CorporationChinese Journal of MathematicsVolume 2014 Article ID 708387 16 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552014708387
2 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
a numerical index Markowitz also defines it as multicycli-cal standard deviation of a variable For example risk ofexchange rate during the years 2000 to 2008 is standarddeviation of exchange rate in these years [1]
Generally economic investors consider two differentkinds of portfolio investment decisions a number of themusing multiobjective economic models and analyzing themtry to select and allocate the best composition of assets forinvestment in a portfolio (see eg [13 14]) In this caseinvestor may have an optimal composition of allocated assetson which investment may not be possible because of marketconditions For example now foreign exchange investmentpolicy of Iran offers less concentration on exchanges likeAmerican dollar Another group of investors select portfolioassets using previous experiences and market conditionsand then by the use of multiobjective economic modelsand heuristic methods optimize allocated portfolio (AP)for a limited time horizon in the future Furthermore inthis kind of investment portfolio management decisions willbe often repeated at the end of the specified time horizon(see eg [15 16]) For instance banks are of economicagencies which considering past exchange trade-off extentuse AP optimization in a finance term for future investmentin an exchange portfolio From AP optimizing advantagesare making opportunity for increasing assets (buy policy) ordecreasing existent assets (sell policy)
Our purpose in this paper will be the latter kind ofinvestmentThepointwhich should be considered by investorin selecting the assets within an AP is the existence of balancein assets two by two overlapping So that if all of AP assets twoby two overlapping are positive in a moment of time it willmean that there is a high probability for obtaining investmentmore profit andmore return aswell But if all of AP assets twoby two overlapping are negative in a moment of time it willmean that there is a low probability for obtaining investmentmore profit and more return as well So in order to obtainproper tradeoffs of risk and return in the balance case wehave to have both negative and positive overlapping for twoby two of assets in an AP
Generally the process of an AP optimization is as followsfirst the investor introduces a certain level of hisher assetsThen using past information the analyst draws out requiredstatistic indices and performs optimization process by offer-ing amultiobjectivemodel and will provide a set of objectivesof different optimal levels for the investor Finally consideringlimited time horizon in future the investor will make thelast decision about increase or decrease of within AP assetslevel
Having various objectives is helpful to make betterdecisions in the future Most of investors are interested inhaving information like investment cost risk and returnto make better decisions According to economic theorieseveryone can have different compositions of risk and returnlevels on the basis of which risk and return trade-offsmake no difference for us Pareto frontier will be drawn byconnecting these points together Of course one does notpractically draw these graphs to make decision and performsthe decision making process rather by an ocular viewpointbased on recognition of ones own specifics
When investors accept higher level of risk they willobtain more return which is called risk premium Because ofcondition changes various people accept different levels ofrisk which is more on the basis of their received informationfrom market as their psychological and behavioral specificsat the time of decision making On the other hand all riskscould not be eliminated due to the fact of considering thestraight relation between risk and return the opportunitieswill be eliminated too So we have to pay attention to risk andreturn simultaneously Obviously acceptance of higher riskwill be accompanied by more return
On the other hand one of themost important goals whichinvestors always want to decrease is investment initial costPeople always want an investment in an economic field byhigher capital return and lower risk and investment initialcost Of course it is an idealistic approach it should beadded that investment in an APmay not be always associatedwith buying new assets and investment may even begin byselling present assets Anyway it is considerable for investorto inform about assets buying or selling extent by regard ofreturn and risk objectives So in this paper considering bankinvestment on an exchange AP we will model investmentinitial cost objective on the basis of an APrsquos specifics as wellas risk and return objectives
The risk we consider in this paper is exchange rate riskwhich is caused by change in exchange rate All companieswhich are out of political borders are dealing with countrieshaving different currencies that are exposed to exchangerate risk Exchange rate risk influences the organizationability to payback the foreign loans Also may cause theorganization not to be able to perform its commitmentsfor forward purchasing of goods from foreign markets Inthe other word changes of exchange rate influence goodsand capital market and may even have destructive effectsFinance institute working in exchange market should consultfor sufficient coverage against future fluctuations of exchangerate It is clear that banks and finance institutes will sustaingreat losses if they do not consider the optimal compositionof an exchange portfolio and each exchangersquos state in theinternational markets So computation of exchange rate riskby banks is effective in decreasing the loss caused by exchangerate fluctuations
Iran has experienced vast changes of exchange rate andits destructive effects during 20 years Most of industrialplans in Iran which were profitable on the basis of the timeexchange rate at the time of startup and economic studybecame bankrupt after decrease of Rials (formal currency ofIran) value because of dependence on imported raw materialand companies went bankrupt as well Of these industrieswe can name matting industry which became bankruptafter exchange rate changed from 1750 Rials to 8000 RialsAlso recently most of investors importers and banks havesustained losses because of extreme increase of Euro priceand fluctuations of other exchanges Thus government triesto compensate this loss by giving loan to investors throughwithdrawal of country exchange reserve account So it seemsnecessary for Iranian investors to know risk level for foreigninvestment so that knowing will prevent disadvantagescaused by irrelevant discount of country income Second
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 3
it seems that Iranian investors beside the return objectivedo not consider risk objective so much or they do notpay enough attention to it as an important objective forinvestment Whereas return and risk objectives should beassessed together And the third consumption of irrelevantcosts when the investor knows nothing about expected riskand return level of hisher investment this influences futuredecisions So it is always favored for investors to find asolution to decrease investment initial cost beside decreaseof risk and increase of future return
Our main motivations for presenting this paper is lackof a monorate exchange regime in Iran before 2002 and thetraditional viewpoint of Iranian investors which has oftenfailed In this paper using Markowitz mean-variance modeland adding a objective function of investment cost for anexchange AP which include five major exchanges presentin foreign investment portfolio of Iran Melli bank we opti-mize triobjective problem by the Weighted Global Criterion(WGC) method and consider interobjectives tradeoffs ofinvestment risk return and initial cost by making considerinter-objectives trade-offs of investment risk return andinitial cost by making changes in preference weights of theobjectives After evaluation of results based on the norms119901 = 1 2infin is presented a proper procedure to investor(bank) for making decision about investment in a one yeartime horizon
The paper continues as follows in Section 2 a triobjectivemodel by objectives of investment risk return and initial coston the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model is offeredWGCmethod along with a review of its literature for solutionof our proposal model is presented in Section 2 Also inorder to determine maximum expected loss of an AP ina future time horizon the Value-at-Risk (VaR) method isintroduced in this sectionNext in Section 3 we illustrate ourproposalmodel on an exchange APwhich includes fivemajorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank and analyze obtainedresults based on the norms 119901 = 1 2 and infin and finallySection 4 presents conclusions and final remarks
2 Problem Modelin
Markowitz [1] mean-variance model obtains optimal riskvalue for an explicit level of return by minimizing varianceof total within portfolio assets
Here we model our proposal triobjective model bymaking a change inMarkowitzmean-variancemodel where 119894(for 119894 = 1 2 119898) is number of existent assets in AP 119909
119894(for
119894 = 1 2 119898) is the decision variable of asset proportion119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) in optimal AP and 119877
119894is daily
return random variable of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) withnormally distributed that is computed as follows
119877119894119905= ln(
119901119894119905
119901119894(119905minus1)
) 119894 = 1 2 119898 (1)
where 119901119894119905is price of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) in day 119905th of
understudy term and119877119894119905is logarithmic return of asset 119894th (for
119894 = 1 2 119898) in day 119905th of understudy term 119864(119877119894) is daily
return mean of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) and Var(119877119894) is
daily return variance of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) Also1205902
AP = sum119898
119894=1Var(119877
119894119909119894) and 119877AP = sum
119898
119894=1119864(119877119894119909119894) are return
variance and mean of all AP assets respectivelyIn an AP if119872
119894(existent)119873119894(existent) and 119901119894 are present valueof existent asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) number of existentasset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) and price of asset 119894th (for 119894 =1 2 119898) in the last day of understudy term respectivelythen
119873119894(existent) =
119872119894(existent)
119901119894
119894 = 1 2 119898 (2)
Also if 119909119894(existent) is existent proportion of asset 119894th (for 119894 =
1 2 119898) of an AP in the last day of understudy term then
119909119894(existent) =
119873119894(existent)
sum119898
119894=1119873119894(existent)
119894 = 1 2 119898 (3)
where finally 119864(119877119894) times 119909119894(existent) is minimum aspiration level
of return belonging to asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) in an APin the last day of understudy term and sum5
119894=1119864(119877119894) times 119909119894(existent)
is minimum aspiration level of same AP in the last day ofunderstudy term for all assets as well
In this section we propose a new objective for Markowitzmodel which is called investment initial cost Purpose ofthis objective is to minimize investment cost This minimuminvestment initial cost means minimizing new assets buyingcost but includes AP assets selling subject as well Ourpurpose is decrease of new assets buying cost that maysometimes cause income earning from selling existent assetsThus in this paper we consider final results obtained fromwithin AP investment initial cost objective by two variables119862minus
AP (income variable caused by selling AP existent assets)and 119862+AP (cost variable of new assets buying)
Investor initiates the investment on the basis of last pricepresent for each asset sole So as the investor wants to knowrisk and return level of hisher investment before investmenton an AP in a new finance term heshe could be presenteda set of tradeoffs between investment risk return and initialcost objectives Because each asset price in understudy termchanges a little so we use least period demand method topredict future price for performing assets sell or buy policyso that assets future price in beginning days of time horizon ispredicted to be equal to their present price So in general wecan show AP cost objective function as a linear combinationof the number of assets which should be bought (119910
119894) and the
price of each asset in the last understudy day (119901119894) Results can
be seen as
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894119910119894 (4)
Considering situation of existent assets our purpose isbuying new assets for futureThus 119910
1198941is total number of asset
119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) which we have at present 1199101198942is total
number of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) which we will have atthe future and 119910
119894is number of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898)
4 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
which we must buy regardless of situation of existent assetsSo (4) can be also written as
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894(1199101198942minus 1199101198941) (5)
If 119910 = sum119898119894=1119873119894(existent) is the total number of existent assets
in AP then
1199101198942= 119910119909119894 119894 = 1 2 119898 (6)
Considering (5) and (6) we have
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894(119910119909119894minus 1199101198941) (7)
The following should be noted about (7)
(i) If sum119898119894=1119901119894119910119909119894gt sum119898
119894=11199011198941199101198941 then 119862+AP = 119862AP gt 0 that
is buy policy is offered for investment and optimalvalue of objective119862AP is considered as minimum costof new assets buying
(ii) If sum119898119894=1119901119894119910119909119894lt sum119898
119894=11199011198941199101198941 then 119862minusAP = 119862AP lt 0 that
is sell policy is offered for investment and |119862AP| isconsidered as maximum income obtained of sellingexistent assets
(iii) If 119910119909119894= 1199101198941 then 119862AP = 0 (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) that is
from cost point of view investment would be properby existent assets
It should be added that if we consider assets buy policy119862AP is buy initial cost objective and it is important thatwe minimize it Also if we consider assets sell policy 119862APis income objective obtained of selling the assets and it isimportant that we maximize it So as presupposition weconsider 119862AP as investment initial cost objective by policiesof selling or buying the assets So our proposed triobjectivemodel is problem (P1)
(P1) Opt (1205902
ΑP 119877AP 119862AP) (8)
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1 (9)
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898 (10)
Problem (P1) is a constrained triobjective decision modelthat incorporates tradeoffs between competing objectives ofrisk return and cost for investment Equation (8) is theobjective vector to be optimized with respect to the factthat investment risk of existent assets in AP is wished to beminimized return obtained from investment onAP is wishedto bemaximized and initial cost of investment onAP assets iswished to be minimized Equation (9) is the same constraintof variance-covariance primary model which is presentedhere This constraint implies that sum of total proportionsof existent assets in AP will always be equal to one Also(10) guarantees which each asset proportion in optimal APbe non-negative
In (P1) minimizing AP daily return variance is used tominimize risk objective Besides because a portfoliorsquos returnis measured by assets daily return expected value so in (P1)return objective will be maximized by linear combination ofAP assets daily return mean [2]
It should be considered that solving (P1) does not yieldonly one optimal solution and yields a set of optimal non-dominated solutions which are on Pareto frontier instead Todescribe the concept of optimality in which we are interestedwe will introduce next a few definitions
Definition 1 Given two vectors 119909 119910 isin 119877119896 one may say that
119909 ge 119910 if 119909119894ge 119910119894for 119894 = 1 2 119896 and that 119909 dominates 119910
(denoted by 119909 ≻ 119910) if 119909 ge 119910 and 119909 = 119910Consider a biobjective optimization problem with three
different solutions 1 2 and 3 where solutions 1 and 2 are dis-played with vectors 119909 and 119910 respectively The ideal solutionis displayed with 4 Function 119865
1needs to be maximized and
1198652needs to be minimized (see Figure 1)
Comparing solutions 1 and 2 solution 1 is better thansolution 2 in terms of both objective functions So it can besaid that 119909 dominates 119910 and we display this with 119909 ≻ 119910
Definition 2 One may say that a vector of decision variables119909 isin 119878 sub 119877
119899 (119878 is the feasible space) is nondominated withrespect to 119878 if there does not exist another 1199091015840 isin 119878 such that119891(119909) ≻ 119891(119909
1015840)
In Figure 1 if solutions 1 and 3 are displayedwith vectors119909and 119911 respectively then comparing 1 and 3 we see 3 is betterthan 1 in terms of 119865
1 whereas 1 is better than 3 in terms of
1198652 where 119909 ≻ 119911 and 119911 ≻ 119909 So in here vectors 119909 and 119911 are
nondominated with respect to each other
Definition 3 One may say that a vector of decision variable119909lowastisin 119878 sub 119877
119899 is Pareto optimal if it is nondominated withrespect to 119878
Let suppose that 119909lowast notin 119878 be a solution such as 4 Inthis state the above assumption is violated because 119909lowast is adominated solution which dominates all other solutions So119909lowast can be a solution such as 1 or 3 which are nondominated
Definition 4 The Pareto optimal set 119875lowast is defined by
119875lowast= 119909 isin 119865 | 119909 is Pareto optimal (11)
Definition 5 The Pareto Frontier PFlowast is defined by
PFlowast = 119891 (119909) isin 119877119896 | 119909 isin 119875lowast (12)
21 The WGC Method Of the proper assessment methodswhen investor information are unavailable are methodsrelated to 119897
119901-norm family so that by change of objectives
importance weight there is no need for investorrsquos primaryinformation In such methods investor will not be disturbedbut analyst should be able to consider assumptions aboutinvestorrsquos preferences For incorporating weights in GC weuse approach (13) (for more details see [17])
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 5
3
1
4
2
F
F2
1
S
Figure 1 Illustration of feasible space and ideal solution for abiobjective problem with objectives maximize and minimize
119897119901-norm =
119870
sum
119896=1
119908119896(119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891119896 (119909)
119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891
119896(119909119896lowast))
119901
1119901
(13)
where 119909 = (1199091 1199092 119909
119898) The formulation in (13) is called
standard weighted global criterion formulation Minimizing(13) is sufficient for Pareto optimality as long as 119908
119896gt 0 (for
119896 = 1 2 119870) [17]For each Pareto optimal point 119909
119901 there exists a vector
119908 = (1199081 1199082 119908
119870) and a scalar 119901 such that 119909
119901is a solution
to (13) The value of 119901 determines to what extent a method isable to capture all of the Pareto optimal points (with changein vector119908) even when the feasible spacemay be nonconvexWith (13) using higher values for119901 increases the effectivenessof the method in providing the complete Pareto optimal set[18] However using a higher value for 119901 enables one to bettercapture all Pareto optimal points (with change in 119908) Theweighted min-max formulation which is a special case ofthe WGC approach with 119901 = infin has the following format([19 20] and [21])
(P2) min 119910
st 119910 ge 119908119896(119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891119896 (119909)
119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891
119896(119909119896lowast))
119896 = 1 2 119870
119892119897 (119909) le 119887119897 119897 = 1 2 119871
119910 ge 0
(14)
Using (P2) can provide the complete Pareto optimal setso that it provides a necessary condition for Pareto optimality[19]
In set of WGC methods the goal is to minimize theexistence objective functions deviation from amultiobjectivemodel related to an ideal solution Yu [20] called the idealpoint 119909lowast as a utopia point We optimize each objectivefunction separately to reach utopia point and for 119909 isin 119878It means that in this state ideal solution is obtained fromsolving 119870monoobjective problems as follows
(P3) optimize 119891119896 (119909) 119896 = 1 2 119870
st 119892119897 (119909) le 0 119897 = 1 2 119871
(15)
where utopia point coordinates are 1198911(119909lowast1) 1198912(119909lowast2)
119891119870(119909lowast119870) and 119909lowast119870 optimizes 119896th objective Meanwhile
119909119896
lowastis vector of nadir solution So we canminimize119870 problem
for each objective function in solution space (if objectivesmaximizing is supposed) to reach nadir solution
Considering approach (13) if all 119891119896(119909) are of maximizing
type then 119908119896shows weight of objective 119896th (for 119896 =
1 2 119870) with 0 lt 119908119896lt 1 Also 1 le 119901 le infin shows
indicating parameter of 119897119901-norm family Value 119901 indicates
emphasis degree on present deviations so that the biggerthis value is the more emphasis on biggest deviation willbe If 119901 = infin it means that the biggest present deviation isconsidered for optimizing Usually values 119901 = 1 2 and infinare used in computations Anyway value 119901 may depend oninvestors mental criteria Given values 119908
119896 solution obtained
from minimizing the approach (13) is known as a consistentsolution
So far WGC approach has been widely applied inengineering sciences (see eg [22]) There is no significantstudy performed about application WGC method to solveoptimization portfolio problems On the other hand consid-ering WGC method ability to represent Pareto optimal setit seems that there are no researches performed about usingthis method for optimizing the APs so far So another partof our motivations to present this paper is WGC methodrsquoseffectiveness in representing a complete set of Pareto optimalpoints in optimizing portfolio problems
Using approach (13) we formulate (P1) in the formof (P4)based on the WGC method
(P4) min 1199081(119885lowast1+ 1198651
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus 1198652
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+ 1199083(119885lowast3+ 1198653
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
1119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(16)
where 119908119896is relative importance weight of objective 119896th (for
119896 = 1 2 3) where 0 lt 119908119896lt 1 and 119908
1+ 1199082+ 1199083=
1 Also 119885lowast119896 (for 119896 = 1 2 3) is utopia value of objectivefunction 119896th (here maximum value of objective function 119896this in solution space) 119885119896
lowast(for 119896 = 1 2 3) is nadir value of
objective function 119896th (here minimum value of objectivefunction 119896th is in solution space) and 119865
119896(for 119896 = 1 2 3) is
the 119896th objective function 1198651is the risk objective function
1198652is return objective function and 119865
3is the initial cost
objective function The tradeoffs between objectives is doneby changing119908
119896values 119901 is parameter of final utility function
for which values 1 2 and infin are supposed in this paperConsidering (P4) interobjectives trade-offs general processis as follows first we suppose that investor wants importance
6 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
weight of risk objective be 09 So using WGC methodanalyst obtains a set of tradeoffs between return and costobjectives by assuming importance weight of risk objectiveto be constant heshe decreases importance weight of riskobjective by a descending manner and tradeoffs betweeninvestment return and cost objectives will be reregistered
22 The VaR Method One of the most popular techniquesto determine maximum expected loss of an asset or portfolioin a future time horizon and with a given explicit confidencelevel (VaR definition) is the VaRmethod Dowd et al [23] forcomputation of the VaR associated with normally distributedlog-returns in a long-term applied the following
VaRAP (119879) = 119872 minus119872cl
= 119872 minus exp (119877AP119879 + 120572cl120590APradic119879 + ln (119872))
(17)
Generally considering (17) VaRAP(119879) is VaR of total APfor time horizon understudy in the future 119879 days and 119872 istotal present value of AP assets So in here we have
119872 =
119898
sum
119894=1
119872119894(existent) (18)
Also 120590AP is standard deviation of AP and the VaRconfidence level is cl and we consider VaR over a horizon of119879 days119872cl is the (1 minus cl) percentile (or critical percentile) ofthe terminal value of the portfolio after a holding period of119879 days and 120572cl is the standard normal variate associated withour chosen confidence level (eg so 120572cl = minus1645 if we havea 95 confidence level see eg [24])
3 Case Study
In order to perform tradeoffs or future risk coverage ordiversify exchange reserves Iranian banks perform exchangebuying and selling One of these banks is Bank Melli Iran
which officially started its banking operation in 1928 Theinitial capital of this Iranian bank was about 20000000 RialsNowadays enjoying 85 years of experience and about 3200branches this bank as an important Iran economic andfinance agency has an important role in proving coun-tryrsquos enormous economic goals by absorbing communityrsquoswandering capitals and using them for production Alsofrom international viewpoint Bank Melli Iran with 16 activebranches enjoys distinguished position in rendering bankingservices The most important actions of Bank Melli Iran ininternational field include opening various deposit accountsperforming currency drafts affairs issuing currency under-writing opening confirming covering and conformingdocumentary credits and so forth
Here we consider an exchange AP including five mainexchanges in Iran Melli bank exchange investment portfolioThese five exchanges include US dollar England poundSwitzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen The point whichinvestor Melli bank considers after yielding the results is theproportion of US dollars Right now Iran foreign exchangeinvestment policy necessitates less concentration on thisexchange Understudy data include these five exchanges dailyrate from 25 March 2002 to 19 March 2012 This studied termis short because of lack of exchange monorate regime in Iranexchange policy in years before 2002
Here 1199091 1199092 1199093 1199094and 119909
5are exchanges proportion of
USdollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan100 yen of Melli bank total exchange AP respectively Table 1illustrates statistic indices obtained from these five exchangesdaily rates during the study term
Also variance-covariancematrix obtained from these fiveexchanges daily return during the study term is according toTable 2
Present value of Iran Melli bank exchange AP andminimum aspiration level of AP return in the last day ofstudy term (19 March 2012) along with other information arepresented in Table 3
By considering information of Table 3 we can rewrite(P4) in the form
(P5) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(
119885lowast3+ (8904 (341581517119909
1minus 1909254) + 17934 (341581517119909
2minus 36913126) + 8837 (341581517119909
3minus 18897816)
+14111 (3415815171199094minus 278506130) + 9150 (341581517119909
5minus 5355191))
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(19)
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 7
After simplifying and normalizing constraint coefficientsrelated to cost objective (by dividing above constraint
coefficients in the biggest mentioned constraint coefficient)we can rewrite (P5) in the form
(P6) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(119885lowast3+ (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(20)
Table 1 Illustration of statistic indices drawnout of daily rates of fiveexchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March2002 to 19 March 2012
Exchange (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) 119864(119877119894) Var(119877
119894)
USA dollar 0000084973 0005978413England pound 0000272112 0000050975Switzerland frank 0000314821 0006777075Euro 0000349021 0000028221Japan 100 yen 0000170238 0000034704
where the utopia and nadir values of each objective functionare according to Table 4
Considering Table 4 in the best condition third objectivefunction is of 119862minusAP variable kind and offers assets sellingpolicy where normalized income is equal to 02948852 unitAlso and in the worst conditions it is of 119862+AP variablekind and offers assets buying policy where normalizedcost value (disregard to its mark) is equal to 02123636unit So considering (P6) and information of Table 4 wehave
(P7) min 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119901
+1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119901
+1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(21)
To optimize (P7) we first suppose 119901 = 1 and optimizethe (P7) by changing objectives importance weight To solve(P7) objectives are given various weights in 99 iterations(9 11-fold set of iterations) All obtained results from solving(P7) are presented in Table 8 (in the Appendix (optimal value
of third objective function is considered in the form of minus1198653
in all figures and tables of the appendix for this paper Thepositive values and values which are specified by negativemark (disregard to their mark) are considered as incomesand buying costs resp)) by software Lingo 110 In Table 8
8 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 2 Daily return variance-covariance matrix of five exchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March 2002 to 19 March2012
Exchange USA dollar England pound Switzerland Frank Euro Japan 100 yenUSA dollar 000597841295 minus000000275182 000000333301 000000233057 000000336630England pound 000005097503 000001564795 000001375091 000000578037Switzerland frank 000677707505 000002699918 000001576213Euro 000002822086 000000969165Japan 100 yen 000003470445
Table 3 Present value price number existent proportion daily return mean and minimum aspiration level of return specifics of fiveexchanges USA dollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen in Melli bank exchange AP in 19 March 2012
Exchange 119872119894 (existent) 119901
119894119873119894 (existent) 119909
119894 (existent) 119864(119877119894) 119864(119877
119894) times 119909119894 (existent)
USA dollar 17000000000 8904 1909254 0005589454 0000084973 0000000475England pound 662000000000 17934 36913126 0108065349 0000272112 0000029406Switzerland frank 167000000000 8837 18897816 0055324469 0000314821 0000017417Euro 3930000000000 14111 278506130 0815343090 0000349021 0000284572Japan 100 yen 49000000000 9150 5355191 0015677638 0000170238 0000002669
Total 4825000000000 341581517 1 0000334539
two first columns show numbers of iterations in 9 11-foldset of iterations Three second columns indicate changes ofobjectives importance weight In five third columns the valueof optimal proportion of each exchange in exchange APconsidering the changes of objectives weights is shown andfinally in last three columns optimal values of each objectiveare shown in each iteration
31 Evaluating Pareto Optimal Points Specifics In order toanalyze Pareto optimal points in this section consideringoptimal results of each objective we examine Pareto optimalpoint set for obtained results and indicate that all obtainedresults are considered as Pareto optimal point set First letsintroduce some vector variables 119883119895lowast is optimal vector ofmodel variables in iteration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) ofsolution (ie vector of optimal solution in iteration 119895th ofsolution) and 119865
119895lowast is vector of objectives optimal value initeration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Also 119882119895lowast isvector of objectives importance weight in iteration 119895th (for119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Table 8 presents a set of obtainedoptimal points based on WGC method It also should bementioned that all optimal values of third column are ofvariable 119862minusAP and finally sell policy of AP existent assets isoffered for future investment So the purpose is to maximizethe positive values of minus119865
3column For better understanding
Figure 2 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7)along with utopia and nadir points
One of the most important specifics of Pareto optimalset is that all optimal points are nondominated Let usdefine being dominated to make clear the concept of beingnondominated
Definition 6 A solution 119909119894lowast is said to dominate the othersolution119883119895lowast if the following conditions are satisfied
(i) the solution 119909119894lowast is not worse than119883119895lowast in all objectivesor 119891119896(119909119894lowast) ⋫ 119891119896(119883119895lowast) for all 119896 = 1 2 119870
(ii) the solution 119909119894lowast is strictly better than 119883119895lowast in at leastone objective or 119891
119896(119909119894lowast) ⊲ 119891
119896(119883119895lowast) for at least one
119896 = 1 2 119870
We can say about the obtained results in Table 8 thatall solutions in each set of iterations is nondominated Forexample consider iterations 119895 = 7 and 119895 = 8 The results ofthese two iterations will be
1198827lowast= (09 006 004)
1198837lowast= (0 0 0008756436 0991243600 0)
1198657lowast= (00000287172 00003487215 00033819825)
1198828lowast= (09 007 003)
1198838lowast= (0 0 0004811658 0995188300 0)
1198658lowast= (00000283654 00003488564 00022219703)
(22)
Considering results of the two above iterations at risk09 importance weight and by increasing importance weightof return objective and decreasing investment importanceweight of cost objective by considering vectors1198837lowast and1198838lowastthere is any proportion for dollar pound and Japan 100 yen
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 9
exchanges in optimal AP and proportion of frank (Euro)exchange is decreasing (increasing) in each set of iterations
What is implied from values of vectors 1198657lowast and 1198658lowast is thatrisk objective has improved 00000003518 unit and the thirdobjective offers assets selling policy to decrease investmentinitial cost objective so that this normalized income in eachtwo iterations will be 00033819825 unit and 00022219703unit respectively In other words the extent of incomeresulting of selling the assets has become worse Also theresults indicate that return value in these two iterations hasimproved 00000001349 unit In this case it is said that riskobjective decreases by decrease of selling the assets in eachset of iterations and vice versa So considering Definition 6solutions of these two iterations are nondominated
Arrangement manner of Pareto optimal set relative toutopia and nadir points is shown in Figure 2 Pareto optimalset is established between two mentioned points so that itis more inclined toward utopia point and has the maximum
distance from nadir point Actually external points of solu-tion space which are close to utopia point and far from nadirpoint are introduced as Pareto optimal pointsThis somehowindicates that interobjectives tradeoffs are in a manner thatdistance between Pareto optimal space and utopia point willbeminimized and distance between Pareto optimal space andnadir point will be maximized
32 Making Changes in Value of Norm 119901 Because 119901 valuechanges are by investorrsquos discretion now we suppose thatinvestor considers value of norm 119901 = 2 andinfin We optimized(P7) by software Lingo 110 under condition 119901 = 2 andTable 9 (in The Appendix) shows all results in 99 iterationsAccording towhatwas said about119901 = 1 under this conditionPareto optimal space is between utopia and nadir points tooand tends to become closer to utopia point (see Figure 3)
Finally we optimize (P7) under condition 119901 = infin In thiscondition considering (P2) approach (P7) is aweightedmin-max model So (P7) can be rewritten in the form of (P8) asfollows
(P8) min 119910
st 119910 ge 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119910 ge 1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119910 ge 1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
119910 ge 0
(23)
Table 4 Utopia and nadir values related to each one of theobjectives
Function Utopia Nadirminus1198651
minus00000182639 minus00067770751198652
000034902100 00000849730minus1198653
029488520000 minus0212363600
Results of solving (P8) by software Lingo 110 in 99iterations are shown in Table 10 (in the Appendix) AlsoFigure 4 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving thismodel
Considering results obtained from values changes ofnorm 119901 it can be added that except nadir point and iterations119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 (from results of norm 119901 = infin) asset
Table 5 Results obtained for each objective considering norms of119901 = 1 2 andinfin and by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min (1198651) 0000371116 0001022573 0001388164
Max (1198652) 0000341307 0000297773 0000295503
Max (minus1198653) 0067135173 0172916129 0192074262
sell policy will be offered in other results obtained from threeexamined states
33 Results Evaluation The most important criterion forexamining obtained results is results conformity level withinvestorrsquos proposed goals As mentioned before considering
10 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 6 Information obtained of WGC method results with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Objective function 119865lowast
1119865lowast
2minus119865lowast
3
Objective name Risk Rate of return Income Cost119901 = 1
Mean 0000385422 0000275693 0141152048 mdashMin 0000028221 0000170333 0000806933 mdashMax 0006777075 0000349021 0294885220 mdash
119901 = 2
Mean 0000610893 0000284013 0161748217 mdashMin 0000028248 0000172807 0001455988 mdashMax 0002308977 0000348946 0281424452 mdash
119901 = infin
Mean 0000789979 0000281186 0179850336 minus0002756123lowast
Min 0000027132 0000172041 0000094981 minus0000255917lowastlowast
Max 0003797903 0000348978 0286319160 minus0007842553lowastlowastlowast
Notes lowastMean of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastMinimum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastlowastMaximum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)
Table 7 Summary of Table 6 information
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min Risk 0000028221 0000028248 0000027132Max Rate ofReturn 0000349021 0000348946 0000348978
Max Income 0294885220 0281424452 0286319160Min Cost mdash mdash 0000255917
Iran foreign exchange investment policy investor considersless concentration on US dollar For example the results ofTable 8 indicate that in each 11-fold set of iterations by having1199081constant and increasing 119908
2and decreasing 119908
3 we see
decrease of dollar and Japan 100 yen exchanges proportionand increase of Euro exchange proportion in each set ofiterations so that proportion of these exchanges is often zeroAlso there is no guarantee for investment on pound exchangeIt can be said about frank exchange that there is the firstincrease and then decrease trends in each set of iterations
Finally Tables 8 9 and 10 indicate that the average ofthe most exchange proportion in AP belongs to the Euroexchange followed by the Japan 100 yen frank dollar andpound exchanges respectively So considering all resultsobtained with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin investor obtainshisher first goal
Figures 5 6 and 7 show arrangement of Pareto optimal ofall results of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin norms between two utopia andnadir points in three different bidimensional graphs Figure 5shows tradeoffs between two first and third objectives As itis seen in this graph increase of investment risk objectiveresults in increase of income objective obtained from assetssell and vice versa decrease of obtained income value is alongwith decrease of investment risk value Also Tables 8 9 and10 show these changes in each 11-fold set of two 119865
1and minus119865
3
columns results
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 2 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 1
Figure 6 shows tradeoffs between two second and thirdobjectives The objective is increase of investment returnvalue and increase of income value obtained from assets sellResults correctness can be seen in Figure 6 too
Also tradeoffs between two first and second objectivescan be examined in Figure 7 Because the purpose is decreaseof first objective and increase of second objective so thisgraph indicates that we will expect increase (or decrease)of investment return value by increase (or decrease) ofinvestment risk value
Now suppose that investor makes no difference betweenobjectives and wants analyst to reexamine the results fordifferent norms of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin considering the equalityof objectives importance So by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
and1199081+1199082+1199083= 1 the objectives results will be according
to Table 5Complete specifications related toTable 5 information are
inserted in iteration 119895 = 100 of Tables 8 9 and 10 As itis clear in Table 5 third objective offers assets sell policy byassumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083 On the other hand under
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
2 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
a numerical index Markowitz also defines it as multicycli-cal standard deviation of a variable For example risk ofexchange rate during the years 2000 to 2008 is standarddeviation of exchange rate in these years [1]
Generally economic investors consider two differentkinds of portfolio investment decisions a number of themusing multiobjective economic models and analyzing themtry to select and allocate the best composition of assets forinvestment in a portfolio (see eg [13 14]) In this caseinvestor may have an optimal composition of allocated assetson which investment may not be possible because of marketconditions For example now foreign exchange investmentpolicy of Iran offers less concentration on exchanges likeAmerican dollar Another group of investors select portfolioassets using previous experiences and market conditionsand then by the use of multiobjective economic modelsand heuristic methods optimize allocated portfolio (AP)for a limited time horizon in the future Furthermore inthis kind of investment portfolio management decisions willbe often repeated at the end of the specified time horizon(see eg [15 16]) For instance banks are of economicagencies which considering past exchange trade-off extentuse AP optimization in a finance term for future investmentin an exchange portfolio From AP optimizing advantagesare making opportunity for increasing assets (buy policy) ordecreasing existent assets (sell policy)
Our purpose in this paper will be the latter kind ofinvestmentThepointwhich should be considered by investorin selecting the assets within an AP is the existence of balancein assets two by two overlapping So that if all of AP assets twoby two overlapping are positive in a moment of time it willmean that there is a high probability for obtaining investmentmore profit andmore return aswell But if all of AP assets twoby two overlapping are negative in a moment of time it willmean that there is a low probability for obtaining investmentmore profit and more return as well So in order to obtainproper tradeoffs of risk and return in the balance case wehave to have both negative and positive overlapping for twoby two of assets in an AP
Generally the process of an AP optimization is as followsfirst the investor introduces a certain level of hisher assetsThen using past information the analyst draws out requiredstatistic indices and performs optimization process by offer-ing amultiobjectivemodel and will provide a set of objectivesof different optimal levels for the investor Finally consideringlimited time horizon in future the investor will make thelast decision about increase or decrease of within AP assetslevel
Having various objectives is helpful to make betterdecisions in the future Most of investors are interested inhaving information like investment cost risk and returnto make better decisions According to economic theorieseveryone can have different compositions of risk and returnlevels on the basis of which risk and return trade-offsmake no difference for us Pareto frontier will be drawn byconnecting these points together Of course one does notpractically draw these graphs to make decision and performsthe decision making process rather by an ocular viewpointbased on recognition of ones own specifics
When investors accept higher level of risk they willobtain more return which is called risk premium Because ofcondition changes various people accept different levels ofrisk which is more on the basis of their received informationfrom market as their psychological and behavioral specificsat the time of decision making On the other hand all riskscould not be eliminated due to the fact of considering thestraight relation between risk and return the opportunitieswill be eliminated too So we have to pay attention to risk andreturn simultaneously Obviously acceptance of higher riskwill be accompanied by more return
On the other hand one of themost important goals whichinvestors always want to decrease is investment initial costPeople always want an investment in an economic field byhigher capital return and lower risk and investment initialcost Of course it is an idealistic approach it should beadded that investment in an APmay not be always associatedwith buying new assets and investment may even begin byselling present assets Anyway it is considerable for investorto inform about assets buying or selling extent by regard ofreturn and risk objectives So in this paper considering bankinvestment on an exchange AP we will model investmentinitial cost objective on the basis of an APrsquos specifics as wellas risk and return objectives
The risk we consider in this paper is exchange rate riskwhich is caused by change in exchange rate All companieswhich are out of political borders are dealing with countrieshaving different currencies that are exposed to exchangerate risk Exchange rate risk influences the organizationability to payback the foreign loans Also may cause theorganization not to be able to perform its commitmentsfor forward purchasing of goods from foreign markets Inthe other word changes of exchange rate influence goodsand capital market and may even have destructive effectsFinance institute working in exchange market should consultfor sufficient coverage against future fluctuations of exchangerate It is clear that banks and finance institutes will sustaingreat losses if they do not consider the optimal compositionof an exchange portfolio and each exchangersquos state in theinternational markets So computation of exchange rate riskby banks is effective in decreasing the loss caused by exchangerate fluctuations
Iran has experienced vast changes of exchange rate andits destructive effects during 20 years Most of industrialplans in Iran which were profitable on the basis of the timeexchange rate at the time of startup and economic studybecame bankrupt after decrease of Rials (formal currency ofIran) value because of dependence on imported raw materialand companies went bankrupt as well Of these industrieswe can name matting industry which became bankruptafter exchange rate changed from 1750 Rials to 8000 RialsAlso recently most of investors importers and banks havesustained losses because of extreme increase of Euro priceand fluctuations of other exchanges Thus government triesto compensate this loss by giving loan to investors throughwithdrawal of country exchange reserve account So it seemsnecessary for Iranian investors to know risk level for foreigninvestment so that knowing will prevent disadvantagescaused by irrelevant discount of country income Second
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 3
it seems that Iranian investors beside the return objectivedo not consider risk objective so much or they do notpay enough attention to it as an important objective forinvestment Whereas return and risk objectives should beassessed together And the third consumption of irrelevantcosts when the investor knows nothing about expected riskand return level of hisher investment this influences futuredecisions So it is always favored for investors to find asolution to decrease investment initial cost beside decreaseof risk and increase of future return
Our main motivations for presenting this paper is lackof a monorate exchange regime in Iran before 2002 and thetraditional viewpoint of Iranian investors which has oftenfailed In this paper using Markowitz mean-variance modeland adding a objective function of investment cost for anexchange AP which include five major exchanges presentin foreign investment portfolio of Iran Melli bank we opti-mize triobjective problem by the Weighted Global Criterion(WGC) method and consider interobjectives tradeoffs ofinvestment risk return and initial cost by making considerinter-objectives trade-offs of investment risk return andinitial cost by making changes in preference weights of theobjectives After evaluation of results based on the norms119901 = 1 2infin is presented a proper procedure to investor(bank) for making decision about investment in a one yeartime horizon
The paper continues as follows in Section 2 a triobjectivemodel by objectives of investment risk return and initial coston the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model is offeredWGCmethod along with a review of its literature for solutionof our proposal model is presented in Section 2 Also inorder to determine maximum expected loss of an AP ina future time horizon the Value-at-Risk (VaR) method isintroduced in this sectionNext in Section 3 we illustrate ourproposalmodel on an exchange APwhich includes fivemajorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank and analyze obtainedresults based on the norms 119901 = 1 2 and infin and finallySection 4 presents conclusions and final remarks
2 Problem Modelin
Markowitz [1] mean-variance model obtains optimal riskvalue for an explicit level of return by minimizing varianceof total within portfolio assets
Here we model our proposal triobjective model bymaking a change inMarkowitzmean-variancemodel where 119894(for 119894 = 1 2 119898) is number of existent assets in AP 119909
119894(for
119894 = 1 2 119898) is the decision variable of asset proportion119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) in optimal AP and 119877
119894is daily
return random variable of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) withnormally distributed that is computed as follows
119877119894119905= ln(
119901119894119905
119901119894(119905minus1)
) 119894 = 1 2 119898 (1)
where 119901119894119905is price of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) in day 119905th of
understudy term and119877119894119905is logarithmic return of asset 119894th (for
119894 = 1 2 119898) in day 119905th of understudy term 119864(119877119894) is daily
return mean of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) and Var(119877119894) is
daily return variance of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) Also1205902
AP = sum119898
119894=1Var(119877
119894119909119894) and 119877AP = sum
119898
119894=1119864(119877119894119909119894) are return
variance and mean of all AP assets respectivelyIn an AP if119872
119894(existent)119873119894(existent) and 119901119894 are present valueof existent asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) number of existentasset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) and price of asset 119894th (for 119894 =1 2 119898) in the last day of understudy term respectivelythen
119873119894(existent) =
119872119894(existent)
119901119894
119894 = 1 2 119898 (2)
Also if 119909119894(existent) is existent proportion of asset 119894th (for 119894 =
1 2 119898) of an AP in the last day of understudy term then
119909119894(existent) =
119873119894(existent)
sum119898
119894=1119873119894(existent)
119894 = 1 2 119898 (3)
where finally 119864(119877119894) times 119909119894(existent) is minimum aspiration level
of return belonging to asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) in an APin the last day of understudy term and sum5
119894=1119864(119877119894) times 119909119894(existent)
is minimum aspiration level of same AP in the last day ofunderstudy term for all assets as well
In this section we propose a new objective for Markowitzmodel which is called investment initial cost Purpose ofthis objective is to minimize investment cost This minimuminvestment initial cost means minimizing new assets buyingcost but includes AP assets selling subject as well Ourpurpose is decrease of new assets buying cost that maysometimes cause income earning from selling existent assetsThus in this paper we consider final results obtained fromwithin AP investment initial cost objective by two variables119862minus
AP (income variable caused by selling AP existent assets)and 119862+AP (cost variable of new assets buying)
Investor initiates the investment on the basis of last pricepresent for each asset sole So as the investor wants to knowrisk and return level of hisher investment before investmenton an AP in a new finance term heshe could be presenteda set of tradeoffs between investment risk return and initialcost objectives Because each asset price in understudy termchanges a little so we use least period demand method topredict future price for performing assets sell or buy policyso that assets future price in beginning days of time horizon ispredicted to be equal to their present price So in general wecan show AP cost objective function as a linear combinationof the number of assets which should be bought (119910
119894) and the
price of each asset in the last understudy day (119901119894) Results can
be seen as
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894119910119894 (4)
Considering situation of existent assets our purpose isbuying new assets for futureThus 119910
1198941is total number of asset
119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) which we have at present 1199101198942is total
number of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) which we will have atthe future and 119910
119894is number of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898)
4 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
which we must buy regardless of situation of existent assetsSo (4) can be also written as
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894(1199101198942minus 1199101198941) (5)
If 119910 = sum119898119894=1119873119894(existent) is the total number of existent assets
in AP then
1199101198942= 119910119909119894 119894 = 1 2 119898 (6)
Considering (5) and (6) we have
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894(119910119909119894minus 1199101198941) (7)
The following should be noted about (7)
(i) If sum119898119894=1119901119894119910119909119894gt sum119898
119894=11199011198941199101198941 then 119862+AP = 119862AP gt 0 that
is buy policy is offered for investment and optimalvalue of objective119862AP is considered as minimum costof new assets buying
(ii) If sum119898119894=1119901119894119910119909119894lt sum119898
119894=11199011198941199101198941 then 119862minusAP = 119862AP lt 0 that
is sell policy is offered for investment and |119862AP| isconsidered as maximum income obtained of sellingexistent assets
(iii) If 119910119909119894= 1199101198941 then 119862AP = 0 (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) that is
from cost point of view investment would be properby existent assets
It should be added that if we consider assets buy policy119862AP is buy initial cost objective and it is important thatwe minimize it Also if we consider assets sell policy 119862APis income objective obtained of selling the assets and it isimportant that we maximize it So as presupposition weconsider 119862AP as investment initial cost objective by policiesof selling or buying the assets So our proposed triobjectivemodel is problem (P1)
(P1) Opt (1205902
ΑP 119877AP 119862AP) (8)
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1 (9)
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898 (10)
Problem (P1) is a constrained triobjective decision modelthat incorporates tradeoffs between competing objectives ofrisk return and cost for investment Equation (8) is theobjective vector to be optimized with respect to the factthat investment risk of existent assets in AP is wished to beminimized return obtained from investment onAP is wishedto bemaximized and initial cost of investment onAP assets iswished to be minimized Equation (9) is the same constraintof variance-covariance primary model which is presentedhere This constraint implies that sum of total proportionsof existent assets in AP will always be equal to one Also(10) guarantees which each asset proportion in optimal APbe non-negative
In (P1) minimizing AP daily return variance is used tominimize risk objective Besides because a portfoliorsquos returnis measured by assets daily return expected value so in (P1)return objective will be maximized by linear combination ofAP assets daily return mean [2]
It should be considered that solving (P1) does not yieldonly one optimal solution and yields a set of optimal non-dominated solutions which are on Pareto frontier instead Todescribe the concept of optimality in which we are interestedwe will introduce next a few definitions
Definition 1 Given two vectors 119909 119910 isin 119877119896 one may say that
119909 ge 119910 if 119909119894ge 119910119894for 119894 = 1 2 119896 and that 119909 dominates 119910
(denoted by 119909 ≻ 119910) if 119909 ge 119910 and 119909 = 119910Consider a biobjective optimization problem with three
different solutions 1 2 and 3 where solutions 1 and 2 are dis-played with vectors 119909 and 119910 respectively The ideal solutionis displayed with 4 Function 119865
1needs to be maximized and
1198652needs to be minimized (see Figure 1)
Comparing solutions 1 and 2 solution 1 is better thansolution 2 in terms of both objective functions So it can besaid that 119909 dominates 119910 and we display this with 119909 ≻ 119910
Definition 2 One may say that a vector of decision variables119909 isin 119878 sub 119877
119899 (119878 is the feasible space) is nondominated withrespect to 119878 if there does not exist another 1199091015840 isin 119878 such that119891(119909) ≻ 119891(119909
1015840)
In Figure 1 if solutions 1 and 3 are displayedwith vectors119909and 119911 respectively then comparing 1 and 3 we see 3 is betterthan 1 in terms of 119865
1 whereas 1 is better than 3 in terms of
1198652 where 119909 ≻ 119911 and 119911 ≻ 119909 So in here vectors 119909 and 119911 are
nondominated with respect to each other
Definition 3 One may say that a vector of decision variable119909lowastisin 119878 sub 119877
119899 is Pareto optimal if it is nondominated withrespect to 119878
Let suppose that 119909lowast notin 119878 be a solution such as 4 Inthis state the above assumption is violated because 119909lowast is adominated solution which dominates all other solutions So119909lowast can be a solution such as 1 or 3 which are nondominated
Definition 4 The Pareto optimal set 119875lowast is defined by
119875lowast= 119909 isin 119865 | 119909 is Pareto optimal (11)
Definition 5 The Pareto Frontier PFlowast is defined by
PFlowast = 119891 (119909) isin 119877119896 | 119909 isin 119875lowast (12)
21 The WGC Method Of the proper assessment methodswhen investor information are unavailable are methodsrelated to 119897
119901-norm family so that by change of objectives
importance weight there is no need for investorrsquos primaryinformation In such methods investor will not be disturbedbut analyst should be able to consider assumptions aboutinvestorrsquos preferences For incorporating weights in GC weuse approach (13) (for more details see [17])
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 5
3
1
4
2
F
F2
1
S
Figure 1 Illustration of feasible space and ideal solution for abiobjective problem with objectives maximize and minimize
119897119901-norm =
119870
sum
119896=1
119908119896(119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891119896 (119909)
119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891
119896(119909119896lowast))
119901
1119901
(13)
where 119909 = (1199091 1199092 119909
119898) The formulation in (13) is called
standard weighted global criterion formulation Minimizing(13) is sufficient for Pareto optimality as long as 119908
119896gt 0 (for
119896 = 1 2 119870) [17]For each Pareto optimal point 119909
119901 there exists a vector
119908 = (1199081 1199082 119908
119870) and a scalar 119901 such that 119909
119901is a solution
to (13) The value of 119901 determines to what extent a method isable to capture all of the Pareto optimal points (with changein vector119908) even when the feasible spacemay be nonconvexWith (13) using higher values for119901 increases the effectivenessof the method in providing the complete Pareto optimal set[18] However using a higher value for 119901 enables one to bettercapture all Pareto optimal points (with change in 119908) Theweighted min-max formulation which is a special case ofthe WGC approach with 119901 = infin has the following format([19 20] and [21])
(P2) min 119910
st 119910 ge 119908119896(119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891119896 (119909)
119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891
119896(119909119896lowast))
119896 = 1 2 119870
119892119897 (119909) le 119887119897 119897 = 1 2 119871
119910 ge 0
(14)
Using (P2) can provide the complete Pareto optimal setso that it provides a necessary condition for Pareto optimality[19]
In set of WGC methods the goal is to minimize theexistence objective functions deviation from amultiobjectivemodel related to an ideal solution Yu [20] called the idealpoint 119909lowast as a utopia point We optimize each objectivefunction separately to reach utopia point and for 119909 isin 119878It means that in this state ideal solution is obtained fromsolving 119870monoobjective problems as follows
(P3) optimize 119891119896 (119909) 119896 = 1 2 119870
st 119892119897 (119909) le 0 119897 = 1 2 119871
(15)
where utopia point coordinates are 1198911(119909lowast1) 1198912(119909lowast2)
119891119870(119909lowast119870) and 119909lowast119870 optimizes 119896th objective Meanwhile
119909119896
lowastis vector of nadir solution So we canminimize119870 problem
for each objective function in solution space (if objectivesmaximizing is supposed) to reach nadir solution
Considering approach (13) if all 119891119896(119909) are of maximizing
type then 119908119896shows weight of objective 119896th (for 119896 =
1 2 119870) with 0 lt 119908119896lt 1 Also 1 le 119901 le infin shows
indicating parameter of 119897119901-norm family Value 119901 indicates
emphasis degree on present deviations so that the biggerthis value is the more emphasis on biggest deviation willbe If 119901 = infin it means that the biggest present deviation isconsidered for optimizing Usually values 119901 = 1 2 and infinare used in computations Anyway value 119901 may depend oninvestors mental criteria Given values 119908
119896 solution obtained
from minimizing the approach (13) is known as a consistentsolution
So far WGC approach has been widely applied inengineering sciences (see eg [22]) There is no significantstudy performed about application WGC method to solveoptimization portfolio problems On the other hand consid-ering WGC method ability to represent Pareto optimal setit seems that there are no researches performed about usingthis method for optimizing the APs so far So another partof our motivations to present this paper is WGC methodrsquoseffectiveness in representing a complete set of Pareto optimalpoints in optimizing portfolio problems
Using approach (13) we formulate (P1) in the formof (P4)based on the WGC method
(P4) min 1199081(119885lowast1+ 1198651
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus 1198652
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+ 1199083(119885lowast3+ 1198653
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
1119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(16)
where 119908119896is relative importance weight of objective 119896th (for
119896 = 1 2 3) where 0 lt 119908119896lt 1 and 119908
1+ 1199082+ 1199083=
1 Also 119885lowast119896 (for 119896 = 1 2 3) is utopia value of objectivefunction 119896th (here maximum value of objective function 119896this in solution space) 119885119896
lowast(for 119896 = 1 2 3) is nadir value of
objective function 119896th (here minimum value of objectivefunction 119896th is in solution space) and 119865
119896(for 119896 = 1 2 3) is
the 119896th objective function 1198651is the risk objective function
1198652is return objective function and 119865
3is the initial cost
objective function The tradeoffs between objectives is doneby changing119908
119896values 119901 is parameter of final utility function
for which values 1 2 and infin are supposed in this paperConsidering (P4) interobjectives trade-offs general processis as follows first we suppose that investor wants importance
6 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
weight of risk objective be 09 So using WGC methodanalyst obtains a set of tradeoffs between return and costobjectives by assuming importance weight of risk objectiveto be constant heshe decreases importance weight of riskobjective by a descending manner and tradeoffs betweeninvestment return and cost objectives will be reregistered
22 The VaR Method One of the most popular techniquesto determine maximum expected loss of an asset or portfolioin a future time horizon and with a given explicit confidencelevel (VaR definition) is the VaRmethod Dowd et al [23] forcomputation of the VaR associated with normally distributedlog-returns in a long-term applied the following
VaRAP (119879) = 119872 minus119872cl
= 119872 minus exp (119877AP119879 + 120572cl120590APradic119879 + ln (119872))
(17)
Generally considering (17) VaRAP(119879) is VaR of total APfor time horizon understudy in the future 119879 days and 119872 istotal present value of AP assets So in here we have
119872 =
119898
sum
119894=1
119872119894(existent) (18)
Also 120590AP is standard deviation of AP and the VaRconfidence level is cl and we consider VaR over a horizon of119879 days119872cl is the (1 minus cl) percentile (or critical percentile) ofthe terminal value of the portfolio after a holding period of119879 days and 120572cl is the standard normal variate associated withour chosen confidence level (eg so 120572cl = minus1645 if we havea 95 confidence level see eg [24])
3 Case Study
In order to perform tradeoffs or future risk coverage ordiversify exchange reserves Iranian banks perform exchangebuying and selling One of these banks is Bank Melli Iran
which officially started its banking operation in 1928 Theinitial capital of this Iranian bank was about 20000000 RialsNowadays enjoying 85 years of experience and about 3200branches this bank as an important Iran economic andfinance agency has an important role in proving coun-tryrsquos enormous economic goals by absorbing communityrsquoswandering capitals and using them for production Alsofrom international viewpoint Bank Melli Iran with 16 activebranches enjoys distinguished position in rendering bankingservices The most important actions of Bank Melli Iran ininternational field include opening various deposit accountsperforming currency drafts affairs issuing currency under-writing opening confirming covering and conformingdocumentary credits and so forth
Here we consider an exchange AP including five mainexchanges in Iran Melli bank exchange investment portfolioThese five exchanges include US dollar England poundSwitzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen The point whichinvestor Melli bank considers after yielding the results is theproportion of US dollars Right now Iran foreign exchangeinvestment policy necessitates less concentration on thisexchange Understudy data include these five exchanges dailyrate from 25 March 2002 to 19 March 2012 This studied termis short because of lack of exchange monorate regime in Iranexchange policy in years before 2002
Here 1199091 1199092 1199093 1199094and 119909
5are exchanges proportion of
USdollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan100 yen of Melli bank total exchange AP respectively Table 1illustrates statistic indices obtained from these five exchangesdaily rates during the study term
Also variance-covariancematrix obtained from these fiveexchanges daily return during the study term is according toTable 2
Present value of Iran Melli bank exchange AP andminimum aspiration level of AP return in the last day ofstudy term (19 March 2012) along with other information arepresented in Table 3
By considering information of Table 3 we can rewrite(P4) in the form
(P5) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(
119885lowast3+ (8904 (341581517119909
1minus 1909254) + 17934 (341581517119909
2minus 36913126) + 8837 (341581517119909
3minus 18897816)
+14111 (3415815171199094minus 278506130) + 9150 (341581517119909
5minus 5355191))
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(19)
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 7
After simplifying and normalizing constraint coefficientsrelated to cost objective (by dividing above constraint
coefficients in the biggest mentioned constraint coefficient)we can rewrite (P5) in the form
(P6) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(119885lowast3+ (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(20)
Table 1 Illustration of statistic indices drawnout of daily rates of fiveexchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March2002 to 19 March 2012
Exchange (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) 119864(119877119894) Var(119877
119894)
USA dollar 0000084973 0005978413England pound 0000272112 0000050975Switzerland frank 0000314821 0006777075Euro 0000349021 0000028221Japan 100 yen 0000170238 0000034704
where the utopia and nadir values of each objective functionare according to Table 4
Considering Table 4 in the best condition third objectivefunction is of 119862minusAP variable kind and offers assets sellingpolicy where normalized income is equal to 02948852 unitAlso and in the worst conditions it is of 119862+AP variablekind and offers assets buying policy where normalizedcost value (disregard to its mark) is equal to 02123636unit So considering (P6) and information of Table 4 wehave
(P7) min 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119901
+1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119901
+1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(21)
To optimize (P7) we first suppose 119901 = 1 and optimizethe (P7) by changing objectives importance weight To solve(P7) objectives are given various weights in 99 iterations(9 11-fold set of iterations) All obtained results from solving(P7) are presented in Table 8 (in the Appendix (optimal value
of third objective function is considered in the form of minus1198653
in all figures and tables of the appendix for this paper Thepositive values and values which are specified by negativemark (disregard to their mark) are considered as incomesand buying costs resp)) by software Lingo 110 In Table 8
8 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 2 Daily return variance-covariance matrix of five exchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March 2002 to 19 March2012
Exchange USA dollar England pound Switzerland Frank Euro Japan 100 yenUSA dollar 000597841295 minus000000275182 000000333301 000000233057 000000336630England pound 000005097503 000001564795 000001375091 000000578037Switzerland frank 000677707505 000002699918 000001576213Euro 000002822086 000000969165Japan 100 yen 000003470445
Table 3 Present value price number existent proportion daily return mean and minimum aspiration level of return specifics of fiveexchanges USA dollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen in Melli bank exchange AP in 19 March 2012
Exchange 119872119894 (existent) 119901
119894119873119894 (existent) 119909
119894 (existent) 119864(119877119894) 119864(119877
119894) times 119909119894 (existent)
USA dollar 17000000000 8904 1909254 0005589454 0000084973 0000000475England pound 662000000000 17934 36913126 0108065349 0000272112 0000029406Switzerland frank 167000000000 8837 18897816 0055324469 0000314821 0000017417Euro 3930000000000 14111 278506130 0815343090 0000349021 0000284572Japan 100 yen 49000000000 9150 5355191 0015677638 0000170238 0000002669
Total 4825000000000 341581517 1 0000334539
two first columns show numbers of iterations in 9 11-foldset of iterations Three second columns indicate changes ofobjectives importance weight In five third columns the valueof optimal proportion of each exchange in exchange APconsidering the changes of objectives weights is shown andfinally in last three columns optimal values of each objectiveare shown in each iteration
31 Evaluating Pareto Optimal Points Specifics In order toanalyze Pareto optimal points in this section consideringoptimal results of each objective we examine Pareto optimalpoint set for obtained results and indicate that all obtainedresults are considered as Pareto optimal point set First letsintroduce some vector variables 119883119895lowast is optimal vector ofmodel variables in iteration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) ofsolution (ie vector of optimal solution in iteration 119895th ofsolution) and 119865
119895lowast is vector of objectives optimal value initeration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Also 119882119895lowast isvector of objectives importance weight in iteration 119895th (for119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Table 8 presents a set of obtainedoptimal points based on WGC method It also should bementioned that all optimal values of third column are ofvariable 119862minusAP and finally sell policy of AP existent assets isoffered for future investment So the purpose is to maximizethe positive values of minus119865
3column For better understanding
Figure 2 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7)along with utopia and nadir points
One of the most important specifics of Pareto optimalset is that all optimal points are nondominated Let usdefine being dominated to make clear the concept of beingnondominated
Definition 6 A solution 119909119894lowast is said to dominate the othersolution119883119895lowast if the following conditions are satisfied
(i) the solution 119909119894lowast is not worse than119883119895lowast in all objectivesor 119891119896(119909119894lowast) ⋫ 119891119896(119883119895lowast) for all 119896 = 1 2 119870
(ii) the solution 119909119894lowast is strictly better than 119883119895lowast in at leastone objective or 119891
119896(119909119894lowast) ⊲ 119891
119896(119883119895lowast) for at least one
119896 = 1 2 119870
We can say about the obtained results in Table 8 thatall solutions in each set of iterations is nondominated Forexample consider iterations 119895 = 7 and 119895 = 8 The results ofthese two iterations will be
1198827lowast= (09 006 004)
1198837lowast= (0 0 0008756436 0991243600 0)
1198657lowast= (00000287172 00003487215 00033819825)
1198828lowast= (09 007 003)
1198838lowast= (0 0 0004811658 0995188300 0)
1198658lowast= (00000283654 00003488564 00022219703)
(22)
Considering results of the two above iterations at risk09 importance weight and by increasing importance weightof return objective and decreasing investment importanceweight of cost objective by considering vectors1198837lowast and1198838lowastthere is any proportion for dollar pound and Japan 100 yen
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 9
exchanges in optimal AP and proportion of frank (Euro)exchange is decreasing (increasing) in each set of iterations
What is implied from values of vectors 1198657lowast and 1198658lowast is thatrisk objective has improved 00000003518 unit and the thirdobjective offers assets selling policy to decrease investmentinitial cost objective so that this normalized income in eachtwo iterations will be 00033819825 unit and 00022219703unit respectively In other words the extent of incomeresulting of selling the assets has become worse Also theresults indicate that return value in these two iterations hasimproved 00000001349 unit In this case it is said that riskobjective decreases by decrease of selling the assets in eachset of iterations and vice versa So considering Definition 6solutions of these two iterations are nondominated
Arrangement manner of Pareto optimal set relative toutopia and nadir points is shown in Figure 2 Pareto optimalset is established between two mentioned points so that itis more inclined toward utopia point and has the maximum
distance from nadir point Actually external points of solu-tion space which are close to utopia point and far from nadirpoint are introduced as Pareto optimal pointsThis somehowindicates that interobjectives tradeoffs are in a manner thatdistance between Pareto optimal space and utopia point willbeminimized and distance between Pareto optimal space andnadir point will be maximized
32 Making Changes in Value of Norm 119901 Because 119901 valuechanges are by investorrsquos discretion now we suppose thatinvestor considers value of norm 119901 = 2 andinfin We optimized(P7) by software Lingo 110 under condition 119901 = 2 andTable 9 (in The Appendix) shows all results in 99 iterationsAccording towhatwas said about119901 = 1 under this conditionPareto optimal space is between utopia and nadir points tooand tends to become closer to utopia point (see Figure 3)
Finally we optimize (P7) under condition 119901 = infin In thiscondition considering (P2) approach (P7) is aweightedmin-max model So (P7) can be rewritten in the form of (P8) asfollows
(P8) min 119910
st 119910 ge 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119910 ge 1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119910 ge 1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
119910 ge 0
(23)
Table 4 Utopia and nadir values related to each one of theobjectives
Function Utopia Nadirminus1198651
minus00000182639 minus00067770751198652
000034902100 00000849730minus1198653
029488520000 minus0212363600
Results of solving (P8) by software Lingo 110 in 99iterations are shown in Table 10 (in the Appendix) AlsoFigure 4 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving thismodel
Considering results obtained from values changes ofnorm 119901 it can be added that except nadir point and iterations119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 (from results of norm 119901 = infin) asset
Table 5 Results obtained for each objective considering norms of119901 = 1 2 andinfin and by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min (1198651) 0000371116 0001022573 0001388164
Max (1198652) 0000341307 0000297773 0000295503
Max (minus1198653) 0067135173 0172916129 0192074262
sell policy will be offered in other results obtained from threeexamined states
33 Results Evaluation The most important criterion forexamining obtained results is results conformity level withinvestorrsquos proposed goals As mentioned before considering
10 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 6 Information obtained of WGC method results with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Objective function 119865lowast
1119865lowast
2minus119865lowast
3
Objective name Risk Rate of return Income Cost119901 = 1
Mean 0000385422 0000275693 0141152048 mdashMin 0000028221 0000170333 0000806933 mdashMax 0006777075 0000349021 0294885220 mdash
119901 = 2
Mean 0000610893 0000284013 0161748217 mdashMin 0000028248 0000172807 0001455988 mdashMax 0002308977 0000348946 0281424452 mdash
119901 = infin
Mean 0000789979 0000281186 0179850336 minus0002756123lowast
Min 0000027132 0000172041 0000094981 minus0000255917lowastlowast
Max 0003797903 0000348978 0286319160 minus0007842553lowastlowastlowast
Notes lowastMean of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastMinimum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastlowastMaximum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)
Table 7 Summary of Table 6 information
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min Risk 0000028221 0000028248 0000027132Max Rate ofReturn 0000349021 0000348946 0000348978
Max Income 0294885220 0281424452 0286319160Min Cost mdash mdash 0000255917
Iran foreign exchange investment policy investor considersless concentration on US dollar For example the results ofTable 8 indicate that in each 11-fold set of iterations by having1199081constant and increasing 119908
2and decreasing 119908
3 we see
decrease of dollar and Japan 100 yen exchanges proportionand increase of Euro exchange proportion in each set ofiterations so that proportion of these exchanges is often zeroAlso there is no guarantee for investment on pound exchangeIt can be said about frank exchange that there is the firstincrease and then decrease trends in each set of iterations
Finally Tables 8 9 and 10 indicate that the average ofthe most exchange proportion in AP belongs to the Euroexchange followed by the Japan 100 yen frank dollar andpound exchanges respectively So considering all resultsobtained with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin investor obtainshisher first goal
Figures 5 6 and 7 show arrangement of Pareto optimal ofall results of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin norms between two utopia andnadir points in three different bidimensional graphs Figure 5shows tradeoffs between two first and third objectives As itis seen in this graph increase of investment risk objectiveresults in increase of income objective obtained from assetssell and vice versa decrease of obtained income value is alongwith decrease of investment risk value Also Tables 8 9 and10 show these changes in each 11-fold set of two 119865
1and minus119865
3
columns results
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 2 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 1
Figure 6 shows tradeoffs between two second and thirdobjectives The objective is increase of investment returnvalue and increase of income value obtained from assets sellResults correctness can be seen in Figure 6 too
Also tradeoffs between two first and second objectivescan be examined in Figure 7 Because the purpose is decreaseof first objective and increase of second objective so thisgraph indicates that we will expect increase (or decrease)of investment return value by increase (or decrease) ofinvestment risk value
Now suppose that investor makes no difference betweenobjectives and wants analyst to reexamine the results fordifferent norms of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin considering the equalityof objectives importance So by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
and1199081+1199082+1199083= 1 the objectives results will be according
to Table 5Complete specifications related toTable 5 information are
inserted in iteration 119895 = 100 of Tables 8 9 and 10 As itis clear in Table 5 third objective offers assets sell policy byassumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083 On the other hand under
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 3
it seems that Iranian investors beside the return objectivedo not consider risk objective so much or they do notpay enough attention to it as an important objective forinvestment Whereas return and risk objectives should beassessed together And the third consumption of irrelevantcosts when the investor knows nothing about expected riskand return level of hisher investment this influences futuredecisions So it is always favored for investors to find asolution to decrease investment initial cost beside decreaseof risk and increase of future return
Our main motivations for presenting this paper is lackof a monorate exchange regime in Iran before 2002 and thetraditional viewpoint of Iranian investors which has oftenfailed In this paper using Markowitz mean-variance modeland adding a objective function of investment cost for anexchange AP which include five major exchanges presentin foreign investment portfolio of Iran Melli bank we opti-mize triobjective problem by the Weighted Global Criterion(WGC) method and consider interobjectives tradeoffs ofinvestment risk return and initial cost by making considerinter-objectives trade-offs of investment risk return andinitial cost by making changes in preference weights of theobjectives After evaluation of results based on the norms119901 = 1 2infin is presented a proper procedure to investor(bank) for making decision about investment in a one yeartime horizon
The paper continues as follows in Section 2 a triobjectivemodel by objectives of investment risk return and initial coston the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model is offeredWGCmethod along with a review of its literature for solutionof our proposal model is presented in Section 2 Also inorder to determine maximum expected loss of an AP ina future time horizon the Value-at-Risk (VaR) method isintroduced in this sectionNext in Section 3 we illustrate ourproposalmodel on an exchange APwhich includes fivemajorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank and analyze obtainedresults based on the norms 119901 = 1 2 and infin and finallySection 4 presents conclusions and final remarks
2 Problem Modelin
Markowitz [1] mean-variance model obtains optimal riskvalue for an explicit level of return by minimizing varianceof total within portfolio assets
Here we model our proposal triobjective model bymaking a change inMarkowitzmean-variancemodel where 119894(for 119894 = 1 2 119898) is number of existent assets in AP 119909
119894(for
119894 = 1 2 119898) is the decision variable of asset proportion119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) in optimal AP and 119877
119894is daily
return random variable of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) withnormally distributed that is computed as follows
119877119894119905= ln(
119901119894119905
119901119894(119905minus1)
) 119894 = 1 2 119898 (1)
where 119901119894119905is price of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) in day 119905th of
understudy term and119877119894119905is logarithmic return of asset 119894th (for
119894 = 1 2 119898) in day 119905th of understudy term 119864(119877119894) is daily
return mean of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) and Var(119877119894) is
daily return variance of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) Also1205902
AP = sum119898
119894=1Var(119877
119894119909119894) and 119877AP = sum
119898
119894=1119864(119877119894119909119894) are return
variance and mean of all AP assets respectivelyIn an AP if119872
119894(existent)119873119894(existent) and 119901119894 are present valueof existent asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) number of existentasset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) and price of asset 119894th (for 119894 =1 2 119898) in the last day of understudy term respectivelythen
119873119894(existent) =
119872119894(existent)
119901119894
119894 = 1 2 119898 (2)
Also if 119909119894(existent) is existent proportion of asset 119894th (for 119894 =
1 2 119898) of an AP in the last day of understudy term then
119909119894(existent) =
119873119894(existent)
sum119898
119894=1119873119894(existent)
119894 = 1 2 119898 (3)
where finally 119864(119877119894) times 119909119894(existent) is minimum aspiration level
of return belonging to asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) in an APin the last day of understudy term and sum5
119894=1119864(119877119894) times 119909119894(existent)
is minimum aspiration level of same AP in the last day ofunderstudy term for all assets as well
In this section we propose a new objective for Markowitzmodel which is called investment initial cost Purpose ofthis objective is to minimize investment cost This minimuminvestment initial cost means minimizing new assets buyingcost but includes AP assets selling subject as well Ourpurpose is decrease of new assets buying cost that maysometimes cause income earning from selling existent assetsThus in this paper we consider final results obtained fromwithin AP investment initial cost objective by two variables119862minus
AP (income variable caused by selling AP existent assets)and 119862+AP (cost variable of new assets buying)
Investor initiates the investment on the basis of last pricepresent for each asset sole So as the investor wants to knowrisk and return level of hisher investment before investmenton an AP in a new finance term heshe could be presenteda set of tradeoffs between investment risk return and initialcost objectives Because each asset price in understudy termchanges a little so we use least period demand method topredict future price for performing assets sell or buy policyso that assets future price in beginning days of time horizon ispredicted to be equal to their present price So in general wecan show AP cost objective function as a linear combinationof the number of assets which should be bought (119910
119894) and the
price of each asset in the last understudy day (119901119894) Results can
be seen as
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894119910119894 (4)
Considering situation of existent assets our purpose isbuying new assets for futureThus 119910
1198941is total number of asset
119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) which we have at present 1199101198942is total
number of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) which we will have atthe future and 119910
119894is number of asset 119894th (for 119894 = 1 2 119898)
4 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
which we must buy regardless of situation of existent assetsSo (4) can be also written as
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894(1199101198942minus 1199101198941) (5)
If 119910 = sum119898119894=1119873119894(existent) is the total number of existent assets
in AP then
1199101198942= 119910119909119894 119894 = 1 2 119898 (6)
Considering (5) and (6) we have
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894(119910119909119894minus 1199101198941) (7)
The following should be noted about (7)
(i) If sum119898119894=1119901119894119910119909119894gt sum119898
119894=11199011198941199101198941 then 119862+AP = 119862AP gt 0 that
is buy policy is offered for investment and optimalvalue of objective119862AP is considered as minimum costof new assets buying
(ii) If sum119898119894=1119901119894119910119909119894lt sum119898
119894=11199011198941199101198941 then 119862minusAP = 119862AP lt 0 that
is sell policy is offered for investment and |119862AP| isconsidered as maximum income obtained of sellingexistent assets
(iii) If 119910119909119894= 1199101198941 then 119862AP = 0 (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) that is
from cost point of view investment would be properby existent assets
It should be added that if we consider assets buy policy119862AP is buy initial cost objective and it is important thatwe minimize it Also if we consider assets sell policy 119862APis income objective obtained of selling the assets and it isimportant that we maximize it So as presupposition weconsider 119862AP as investment initial cost objective by policiesof selling or buying the assets So our proposed triobjectivemodel is problem (P1)
(P1) Opt (1205902
ΑP 119877AP 119862AP) (8)
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1 (9)
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898 (10)
Problem (P1) is a constrained triobjective decision modelthat incorporates tradeoffs between competing objectives ofrisk return and cost for investment Equation (8) is theobjective vector to be optimized with respect to the factthat investment risk of existent assets in AP is wished to beminimized return obtained from investment onAP is wishedto bemaximized and initial cost of investment onAP assets iswished to be minimized Equation (9) is the same constraintof variance-covariance primary model which is presentedhere This constraint implies that sum of total proportionsof existent assets in AP will always be equal to one Also(10) guarantees which each asset proportion in optimal APbe non-negative
In (P1) minimizing AP daily return variance is used tominimize risk objective Besides because a portfoliorsquos returnis measured by assets daily return expected value so in (P1)return objective will be maximized by linear combination ofAP assets daily return mean [2]
It should be considered that solving (P1) does not yieldonly one optimal solution and yields a set of optimal non-dominated solutions which are on Pareto frontier instead Todescribe the concept of optimality in which we are interestedwe will introduce next a few definitions
Definition 1 Given two vectors 119909 119910 isin 119877119896 one may say that
119909 ge 119910 if 119909119894ge 119910119894for 119894 = 1 2 119896 and that 119909 dominates 119910
(denoted by 119909 ≻ 119910) if 119909 ge 119910 and 119909 = 119910Consider a biobjective optimization problem with three
different solutions 1 2 and 3 where solutions 1 and 2 are dis-played with vectors 119909 and 119910 respectively The ideal solutionis displayed with 4 Function 119865
1needs to be maximized and
1198652needs to be minimized (see Figure 1)
Comparing solutions 1 and 2 solution 1 is better thansolution 2 in terms of both objective functions So it can besaid that 119909 dominates 119910 and we display this with 119909 ≻ 119910
Definition 2 One may say that a vector of decision variables119909 isin 119878 sub 119877
119899 (119878 is the feasible space) is nondominated withrespect to 119878 if there does not exist another 1199091015840 isin 119878 such that119891(119909) ≻ 119891(119909
1015840)
In Figure 1 if solutions 1 and 3 are displayedwith vectors119909and 119911 respectively then comparing 1 and 3 we see 3 is betterthan 1 in terms of 119865
1 whereas 1 is better than 3 in terms of
1198652 where 119909 ≻ 119911 and 119911 ≻ 119909 So in here vectors 119909 and 119911 are
nondominated with respect to each other
Definition 3 One may say that a vector of decision variable119909lowastisin 119878 sub 119877
119899 is Pareto optimal if it is nondominated withrespect to 119878
Let suppose that 119909lowast notin 119878 be a solution such as 4 Inthis state the above assumption is violated because 119909lowast is adominated solution which dominates all other solutions So119909lowast can be a solution such as 1 or 3 which are nondominated
Definition 4 The Pareto optimal set 119875lowast is defined by
119875lowast= 119909 isin 119865 | 119909 is Pareto optimal (11)
Definition 5 The Pareto Frontier PFlowast is defined by
PFlowast = 119891 (119909) isin 119877119896 | 119909 isin 119875lowast (12)
21 The WGC Method Of the proper assessment methodswhen investor information are unavailable are methodsrelated to 119897
119901-norm family so that by change of objectives
importance weight there is no need for investorrsquos primaryinformation In such methods investor will not be disturbedbut analyst should be able to consider assumptions aboutinvestorrsquos preferences For incorporating weights in GC weuse approach (13) (for more details see [17])
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 5
3
1
4
2
F
F2
1
S
Figure 1 Illustration of feasible space and ideal solution for abiobjective problem with objectives maximize and minimize
119897119901-norm =
119870
sum
119896=1
119908119896(119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891119896 (119909)
119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891
119896(119909119896lowast))
119901
1119901
(13)
where 119909 = (1199091 1199092 119909
119898) The formulation in (13) is called
standard weighted global criterion formulation Minimizing(13) is sufficient for Pareto optimality as long as 119908
119896gt 0 (for
119896 = 1 2 119870) [17]For each Pareto optimal point 119909
119901 there exists a vector
119908 = (1199081 1199082 119908
119870) and a scalar 119901 such that 119909
119901is a solution
to (13) The value of 119901 determines to what extent a method isable to capture all of the Pareto optimal points (with changein vector119908) even when the feasible spacemay be nonconvexWith (13) using higher values for119901 increases the effectivenessof the method in providing the complete Pareto optimal set[18] However using a higher value for 119901 enables one to bettercapture all Pareto optimal points (with change in 119908) Theweighted min-max formulation which is a special case ofthe WGC approach with 119901 = infin has the following format([19 20] and [21])
(P2) min 119910
st 119910 ge 119908119896(119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891119896 (119909)
119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891
119896(119909119896lowast))
119896 = 1 2 119870
119892119897 (119909) le 119887119897 119897 = 1 2 119871
119910 ge 0
(14)
Using (P2) can provide the complete Pareto optimal setso that it provides a necessary condition for Pareto optimality[19]
In set of WGC methods the goal is to minimize theexistence objective functions deviation from amultiobjectivemodel related to an ideal solution Yu [20] called the idealpoint 119909lowast as a utopia point We optimize each objectivefunction separately to reach utopia point and for 119909 isin 119878It means that in this state ideal solution is obtained fromsolving 119870monoobjective problems as follows
(P3) optimize 119891119896 (119909) 119896 = 1 2 119870
st 119892119897 (119909) le 0 119897 = 1 2 119871
(15)
where utopia point coordinates are 1198911(119909lowast1) 1198912(119909lowast2)
119891119870(119909lowast119870) and 119909lowast119870 optimizes 119896th objective Meanwhile
119909119896
lowastis vector of nadir solution So we canminimize119870 problem
for each objective function in solution space (if objectivesmaximizing is supposed) to reach nadir solution
Considering approach (13) if all 119891119896(119909) are of maximizing
type then 119908119896shows weight of objective 119896th (for 119896 =
1 2 119870) with 0 lt 119908119896lt 1 Also 1 le 119901 le infin shows
indicating parameter of 119897119901-norm family Value 119901 indicates
emphasis degree on present deviations so that the biggerthis value is the more emphasis on biggest deviation willbe If 119901 = infin it means that the biggest present deviation isconsidered for optimizing Usually values 119901 = 1 2 and infinare used in computations Anyway value 119901 may depend oninvestors mental criteria Given values 119908
119896 solution obtained
from minimizing the approach (13) is known as a consistentsolution
So far WGC approach has been widely applied inengineering sciences (see eg [22]) There is no significantstudy performed about application WGC method to solveoptimization portfolio problems On the other hand consid-ering WGC method ability to represent Pareto optimal setit seems that there are no researches performed about usingthis method for optimizing the APs so far So another partof our motivations to present this paper is WGC methodrsquoseffectiveness in representing a complete set of Pareto optimalpoints in optimizing portfolio problems
Using approach (13) we formulate (P1) in the formof (P4)based on the WGC method
(P4) min 1199081(119885lowast1+ 1198651
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus 1198652
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+ 1199083(119885lowast3+ 1198653
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
1119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(16)
where 119908119896is relative importance weight of objective 119896th (for
119896 = 1 2 3) where 0 lt 119908119896lt 1 and 119908
1+ 1199082+ 1199083=
1 Also 119885lowast119896 (for 119896 = 1 2 3) is utopia value of objectivefunction 119896th (here maximum value of objective function 119896this in solution space) 119885119896
lowast(for 119896 = 1 2 3) is nadir value of
objective function 119896th (here minimum value of objectivefunction 119896th is in solution space) and 119865
119896(for 119896 = 1 2 3) is
the 119896th objective function 1198651is the risk objective function
1198652is return objective function and 119865
3is the initial cost
objective function The tradeoffs between objectives is doneby changing119908
119896values 119901 is parameter of final utility function
for which values 1 2 and infin are supposed in this paperConsidering (P4) interobjectives trade-offs general processis as follows first we suppose that investor wants importance
6 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
weight of risk objective be 09 So using WGC methodanalyst obtains a set of tradeoffs between return and costobjectives by assuming importance weight of risk objectiveto be constant heshe decreases importance weight of riskobjective by a descending manner and tradeoffs betweeninvestment return and cost objectives will be reregistered
22 The VaR Method One of the most popular techniquesto determine maximum expected loss of an asset or portfolioin a future time horizon and with a given explicit confidencelevel (VaR definition) is the VaRmethod Dowd et al [23] forcomputation of the VaR associated with normally distributedlog-returns in a long-term applied the following
VaRAP (119879) = 119872 minus119872cl
= 119872 minus exp (119877AP119879 + 120572cl120590APradic119879 + ln (119872))
(17)
Generally considering (17) VaRAP(119879) is VaR of total APfor time horizon understudy in the future 119879 days and 119872 istotal present value of AP assets So in here we have
119872 =
119898
sum
119894=1
119872119894(existent) (18)
Also 120590AP is standard deviation of AP and the VaRconfidence level is cl and we consider VaR over a horizon of119879 days119872cl is the (1 minus cl) percentile (or critical percentile) ofthe terminal value of the portfolio after a holding period of119879 days and 120572cl is the standard normal variate associated withour chosen confidence level (eg so 120572cl = minus1645 if we havea 95 confidence level see eg [24])
3 Case Study
In order to perform tradeoffs or future risk coverage ordiversify exchange reserves Iranian banks perform exchangebuying and selling One of these banks is Bank Melli Iran
which officially started its banking operation in 1928 Theinitial capital of this Iranian bank was about 20000000 RialsNowadays enjoying 85 years of experience and about 3200branches this bank as an important Iran economic andfinance agency has an important role in proving coun-tryrsquos enormous economic goals by absorbing communityrsquoswandering capitals and using them for production Alsofrom international viewpoint Bank Melli Iran with 16 activebranches enjoys distinguished position in rendering bankingservices The most important actions of Bank Melli Iran ininternational field include opening various deposit accountsperforming currency drafts affairs issuing currency under-writing opening confirming covering and conformingdocumentary credits and so forth
Here we consider an exchange AP including five mainexchanges in Iran Melli bank exchange investment portfolioThese five exchanges include US dollar England poundSwitzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen The point whichinvestor Melli bank considers after yielding the results is theproportion of US dollars Right now Iran foreign exchangeinvestment policy necessitates less concentration on thisexchange Understudy data include these five exchanges dailyrate from 25 March 2002 to 19 March 2012 This studied termis short because of lack of exchange monorate regime in Iranexchange policy in years before 2002
Here 1199091 1199092 1199093 1199094and 119909
5are exchanges proportion of
USdollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan100 yen of Melli bank total exchange AP respectively Table 1illustrates statistic indices obtained from these five exchangesdaily rates during the study term
Also variance-covariancematrix obtained from these fiveexchanges daily return during the study term is according toTable 2
Present value of Iran Melli bank exchange AP andminimum aspiration level of AP return in the last day ofstudy term (19 March 2012) along with other information arepresented in Table 3
By considering information of Table 3 we can rewrite(P4) in the form
(P5) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(
119885lowast3+ (8904 (341581517119909
1minus 1909254) + 17934 (341581517119909
2minus 36913126) + 8837 (341581517119909
3minus 18897816)
+14111 (3415815171199094minus 278506130) + 9150 (341581517119909
5minus 5355191))
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(19)
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 7
After simplifying and normalizing constraint coefficientsrelated to cost objective (by dividing above constraint
coefficients in the biggest mentioned constraint coefficient)we can rewrite (P5) in the form
(P6) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(119885lowast3+ (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(20)
Table 1 Illustration of statistic indices drawnout of daily rates of fiveexchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March2002 to 19 March 2012
Exchange (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) 119864(119877119894) Var(119877
119894)
USA dollar 0000084973 0005978413England pound 0000272112 0000050975Switzerland frank 0000314821 0006777075Euro 0000349021 0000028221Japan 100 yen 0000170238 0000034704
where the utopia and nadir values of each objective functionare according to Table 4
Considering Table 4 in the best condition third objectivefunction is of 119862minusAP variable kind and offers assets sellingpolicy where normalized income is equal to 02948852 unitAlso and in the worst conditions it is of 119862+AP variablekind and offers assets buying policy where normalizedcost value (disregard to its mark) is equal to 02123636unit So considering (P6) and information of Table 4 wehave
(P7) min 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119901
+1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119901
+1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(21)
To optimize (P7) we first suppose 119901 = 1 and optimizethe (P7) by changing objectives importance weight To solve(P7) objectives are given various weights in 99 iterations(9 11-fold set of iterations) All obtained results from solving(P7) are presented in Table 8 (in the Appendix (optimal value
of third objective function is considered in the form of minus1198653
in all figures and tables of the appendix for this paper Thepositive values and values which are specified by negativemark (disregard to their mark) are considered as incomesand buying costs resp)) by software Lingo 110 In Table 8
8 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 2 Daily return variance-covariance matrix of five exchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March 2002 to 19 March2012
Exchange USA dollar England pound Switzerland Frank Euro Japan 100 yenUSA dollar 000597841295 minus000000275182 000000333301 000000233057 000000336630England pound 000005097503 000001564795 000001375091 000000578037Switzerland frank 000677707505 000002699918 000001576213Euro 000002822086 000000969165Japan 100 yen 000003470445
Table 3 Present value price number existent proportion daily return mean and minimum aspiration level of return specifics of fiveexchanges USA dollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen in Melli bank exchange AP in 19 March 2012
Exchange 119872119894 (existent) 119901
119894119873119894 (existent) 119909
119894 (existent) 119864(119877119894) 119864(119877
119894) times 119909119894 (existent)
USA dollar 17000000000 8904 1909254 0005589454 0000084973 0000000475England pound 662000000000 17934 36913126 0108065349 0000272112 0000029406Switzerland frank 167000000000 8837 18897816 0055324469 0000314821 0000017417Euro 3930000000000 14111 278506130 0815343090 0000349021 0000284572Japan 100 yen 49000000000 9150 5355191 0015677638 0000170238 0000002669
Total 4825000000000 341581517 1 0000334539
two first columns show numbers of iterations in 9 11-foldset of iterations Three second columns indicate changes ofobjectives importance weight In five third columns the valueof optimal proportion of each exchange in exchange APconsidering the changes of objectives weights is shown andfinally in last three columns optimal values of each objectiveare shown in each iteration
31 Evaluating Pareto Optimal Points Specifics In order toanalyze Pareto optimal points in this section consideringoptimal results of each objective we examine Pareto optimalpoint set for obtained results and indicate that all obtainedresults are considered as Pareto optimal point set First letsintroduce some vector variables 119883119895lowast is optimal vector ofmodel variables in iteration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) ofsolution (ie vector of optimal solution in iteration 119895th ofsolution) and 119865
119895lowast is vector of objectives optimal value initeration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Also 119882119895lowast isvector of objectives importance weight in iteration 119895th (for119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Table 8 presents a set of obtainedoptimal points based on WGC method It also should bementioned that all optimal values of third column are ofvariable 119862minusAP and finally sell policy of AP existent assets isoffered for future investment So the purpose is to maximizethe positive values of minus119865
3column For better understanding
Figure 2 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7)along with utopia and nadir points
One of the most important specifics of Pareto optimalset is that all optimal points are nondominated Let usdefine being dominated to make clear the concept of beingnondominated
Definition 6 A solution 119909119894lowast is said to dominate the othersolution119883119895lowast if the following conditions are satisfied
(i) the solution 119909119894lowast is not worse than119883119895lowast in all objectivesor 119891119896(119909119894lowast) ⋫ 119891119896(119883119895lowast) for all 119896 = 1 2 119870
(ii) the solution 119909119894lowast is strictly better than 119883119895lowast in at leastone objective or 119891
119896(119909119894lowast) ⊲ 119891
119896(119883119895lowast) for at least one
119896 = 1 2 119870
We can say about the obtained results in Table 8 thatall solutions in each set of iterations is nondominated Forexample consider iterations 119895 = 7 and 119895 = 8 The results ofthese two iterations will be
1198827lowast= (09 006 004)
1198837lowast= (0 0 0008756436 0991243600 0)
1198657lowast= (00000287172 00003487215 00033819825)
1198828lowast= (09 007 003)
1198838lowast= (0 0 0004811658 0995188300 0)
1198658lowast= (00000283654 00003488564 00022219703)
(22)
Considering results of the two above iterations at risk09 importance weight and by increasing importance weightof return objective and decreasing investment importanceweight of cost objective by considering vectors1198837lowast and1198838lowastthere is any proportion for dollar pound and Japan 100 yen
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 9
exchanges in optimal AP and proportion of frank (Euro)exchange is decreasing (increasing) in each set of iterations
What is implied from values of vectors 1198657lowast and 1198658lowast is thatrisk objective has improved 00000003518 unit and the thirdobjective offers assets selling policy to decrease investmentinitial cost objective so that this normalized income in eachtwo iterations will be 00033819825 unit and 00022219703unit respectively In other words the extent of incomeresulting of selling the assets has become worse Also theresults indicate that return value in these two iterations hasimproved 00000001349 unit In this case it is said that riskobjective decreases by decrease of selling the assets in eachset of iterations and vice versa So considering Definition 6solutions of these two iterations are nondominated
Arrangement manner of Pareto optimal set relative toutopia and nadir points is shown in Figure 2 Pareto optimalset is established between two mentioned points so that itis more inclined toward utopia point and has the maximum
distance from nadir point Actually external points of solu-tion space which are close to utopia point and far from nadirpoint are introduced as Pareto optimal pointsThis somehowindicates that interobjectives tradeoffs are in a manner thatdistance between Pareto optimal space and utopia point willbeminimized and distance between Pareto optimal space andnadir point will be maximized
32 Making Changes in Value of Norm 119901 Because 119901 valuechanges are by investorrsquos discretion now we suppose thatinvestor considers value of norm 119901 = 2 andinfin We optimized(P7) by software Lingo 110 under condition 119901 = 2 andTable 9 (in The Appendix) shows all results in 99 iterationsAccording towhatwas said about119901 = 1 under this conditionPareto optimal space is between utopia and nadir points tooand tends to become closer to utopia point (see Figure 3)
Finally we optimize (P7) under condition 119901 = infin In thiscondition considering (P2) approach (P7) is aweightedmin-max model So (P7) can be rewritten in the form of (P8) asfollows
(P8) min 119910
st 119910 ge 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119910 ge 1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119910 ge 1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
119910 ge 0
(23)
Table 4 Utopia and nadir values related to each one of theobjectives
Function Utopia Nadirminus1198651
minus00000182639 minus00067770751198652
000034902100 00000849730minus1198653
029488520000 minus0212363600
Results of solving (P8) by software Lingo 110 in 99iterations are shown in Table 10 (in the Appendix) AlsoFigure 4 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving thismodel
Considering results obtained from values changes ofnorm 119901 it can be added that except nadir point and iterations119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 (from results of norm 119901 = infin) asset
Table 5 Results obtained for each objective considering norms of119901 = 1 2 andinfin and by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min (1198651) 0000371116 0001022573 0001388164
Max (1198652) 0000341307 0000297773 0000295503
Max (minus1198653) 0067135173 0172916129 0192074262
sell policy will be offered in other results obtained from threeexamined states
33 Results Evaluation The most important criterion forexamining obtained results is results conformity level withinvestorrsquos proposed goals As mentioned before considering
10 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 6 Information obtained of WGC method results with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Objective function 119865lowast
1119865lowast
2minus119865lowast
3
Objective name Risk Rate of return Income Cost119901 = 1
Mean 0000385422 0000275693 0141152048 mdashMin 0000028221 0000170333 0000806933 mdashMax 0006777075 0000349021 0294885220 mdash
119901 = 2
Mean 0000610893 0000284013 0161748217 mdashMin 0000028248 0000172807 0001455988 mdashMax 0002308977 0000348946 0281424452 mdash
119901 = infin
Mean 0000789979 0000281186 0179850336 minus0002756123lowast
Min 0000027132 0000172041 0000094981 minus0000255917lowastlowast
Max 0003797903 0000348978 0286319160 minus0007842553lowastlowastlowast
Notes lowastMean of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastMinimum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastlowastMaximum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)
Table 7 Summary of Table 6 information
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min Risk 0000028221 0000028248 0000027132Max Rate ofReturn 0000349021 0000348946 0000348978
Max Income 0294885220 0281424452 0286319160Min Cost mdash mdash 0000255917
Iran foreign exchange investment policy investor considersless concentration on US dollar For example the results ofTable 8 indicate that in each 11-fold set of iterations by having1199081constant and increasing 119908
2and decreasing 119908
3 we see
decrease of dollar and Japan 100 yen exchanges proportionand increase of Euro exchange proportion in each set ofiterations so that proportion of these exchanges is often zeroAlso there is no guarantee for investment on pound exchangeIt can be said about frank exchange that there is the firstincrease and then decrease trends in each set of iterations
Finally Tables 8 9 and 10 indicate that the average ofthe most exchange proportion in AP belongs to the Euroexchange followed by the Japan 100 yen frank dollar andpound exchanges respectively So considering all resultsobtained with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin investor obtainshisher first goal
Figures 5 6 and 7 show arrangement of Pareto optimal ofall results of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin norms between two utopia andnadir points in three different bidimensional graphs Figure 5shows tradeoffs between two first and third objectives As itis seen in this graph increase of investment risk objectiveresults in increase of income objective obtained from assetssell and vice versa decrease of obtained income value is alongwith decrease of investment risk value Also Tables 8 9 and10 show these changes in each 11-fold set of two 119865
1and minus119865
3
columns results
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 2 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 1
Figure 6 shows tradeoffs between two second and thirdobjectives The objective is increase of investment returnvalue and increase of income value obtained from assets sellResults correctness can be seen in Figure 6 too
Also tradeoffs between two first and second objectivescan be examined in Figure 7 Because the purpose is decreaseof first objective and increase of second objective so thisgraph indicates that we will expect increase (or decrease)of investment return value by increase (or decrease) ofinvestment risk value
Now suppose that investor makes no difference betweenobjectives and wants analyst to reexamine the results fordifferent norms of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin considering the equalityof objectives importance So by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
and1199081+1199082+1199083= 1 the objectives results will be according
to Table 5Complete specifications related toTable 5 information are
inserted in iteration 119895 = 100 of Tables 8 9 and 10 As itis clear in Table 5 third objective offers assets sell policy byassumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083 On the other hand under
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
4 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
which we must buy regardless of situation of existent assetsSo (4) can be also written as
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894(1199101198942minus 1199101198941) (5)
If 119910 = sum119898119894=1119873119894(existent) is the total number of existent assets
in AP then
1199101198942= 119910119909119894 119894 = 1 2 119898 (6)
Considering (5) and (6) we have
119862AP =119898
sum
119894=1
119901119894(119910119909119894minus 1199101198941) (7)
The following should be noted about (7)
(i) If sum119898119894=1119901119894119910119909119894gt sum119898
119894=11199011198941199101198941 then 119862+AP = 119862AP gt 0 that
is buy policy is offered for investment and optimalvalue of objective119862AP is considered as minimum costof new assets buying
(ii) If sum119898119894=1119901119894119910119909119894lt sum119898
119894=11199011198941199101198941 then 119862minusAP = 119862AP lt 0 that
is sell policy is offered for investment and |119862AP| isconsidered as maximum income obtained of sellingexistent assets
(iii) If 119910119909119894= 1199101198941 then 119862AP = 0 (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) that is
from cost point of view investment would be properby existent assets
It should be added that if we consider assets buy policy119862AP is buy initial cost objective and it is important thatwe minimize it Also if we consider assets sell policy 119862APis income objective obtained of selling the assets and it isimportant that we maximize it So as presupposition weconsider 119862AP as investment initial cost objective by policiesof selling or buying the assets So our proposed triobjectivemodel is problem (P1)
(P1) Opt (1205902
ΑP 119877AP 119862AP) (8)
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1 (9)
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898 (10)
Problem (P1) is a constrained triobjective decision modelthat incorporates tradeoffs between competing objectives ofrisk return and cost for investment Equation (8) is theobjective vector to be optimized with respect to the factthat investment risk of existent assets in AP is wished to beminimized return obtained from investment onAP is wishedto bemaximized and initial cost of investment onAP assets iswished to be minimized Equation (9) is the same constraintof variance-covariance primary model which is presentedhere This constraint implies that sum of total proportionsof existent assets in AP will always be equal to one Also(10) guarantees which each asset proportion in optimal APbe non-negative
In (P1) minimizing AP daily return variance is used tominimize risk objective Besides because a portfoliorsquos returnis measured by assets daily return expected value so in (P1)return objective will be maximized by linear combination ofAP assets daily return mean [2]
It should be considered that solving (P1) does not yieldonly one optimal solution and yields a set of optimal non-dominated solutions which are on Pareto frontier instead Todescribe the concept of optimality in which we are interestedwe will introduce next a few definitions
Definition 1 Given two vectors 119909 119910 isin 119877119896 one may say that
119909 ge 119910 if 119909119894ge 119910119894for 119894 = 1 2 119896 and that 119909 dominates 119910
(denoted by 119909 ≻ 119910) if 119909 ge 119910 and 119909 = 119910Consider a biobjective optimization problem with three
different solutions 1 2 and 3 where solutions 1 and 2 are dis-played with vectors 119909 and 119910 respectively The ideal solutionis displayed with 4 Function 119865
1needs to be maximized and
1198652needs to be minimized (see Figure 1)
Comparing solutions 1 and 2 solution 1 is better thansolution 2 in terms of both objective functions So it can besaid that 119909 dominates 119910 and we display this with 119909 ≻ 119910
Definition 2 One may say that a vector of decision variables119909 isin 119878 sub 119877
119899 (119878 is the feasible space) is nondominated withrespect to 119878 if there does not exist another 1199091015840 isin 119878 such that119891(119909) ≻ 119891(119909
1015840)
In Figure 1 if solutions 1 and 3 are displayedwith vectors119909and 119911 respectively then comparing 1 and 3 we see 3 is betterthan 1 in terms of 119865
1 whereas 1 is better than 3 in terms of
1198652 where 119909 ≻ 119911 and 119911 ≻ 119909 So in here vectors 119909 and 119911 are
nondominated with respect to each other
Definition 3 One may say that a vector of decision variable119909lowastisin 119878 sub 119877
119899 is Pareto optimal if it is nondominated withrespect to 119878
Let suppose that 119909lowast notin 119878 be a solution such as 4 Inthis state the above assumption is violated because 119909lowast is adominated solution which dominates all other solutions So119909lowast can be a solution such as 1 or 3 which are nondominated
Definition 4 The Pareto optimal set 119875lowast is defined by
119875lowast= 119909 isin 119865 | 119909 is Pareto optimal (11)
Definition 5 The Pareto Frontier PFlowast is defined by
PFlowast = 119891 (119909) isin 119877119896 | 119909 isin 119875lowast (12)
21 The WGC Method Of the proper assessment methodswhen investor information are unavailable are methodsrelated to 119897
119901-norm family so that by change of objectives
importance weight there is no need for investorrsquos primaryinformation In such methods investor will not be disturbedbut analyst should be able to consider assumptions aboutinvestorrsquos preferences For incorporating weights in GC weuse approach (13) (for more details see [17])
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 5
3
1
4
2
F
F2
1
S
Figure 1 Illustration of feasible space and ideal solution for abiobjective problem with objectives maximize and minimize
119897119901-norm =
119870
sum
119896=1
119908119896(119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891119896 (119909)
119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891
119896(119909119896lowast))
119901
1119901
(13)
where 119909 = (1199091 1199092 119909
119898) The formulation in (13) is called
standard weighted global criterion formulation Minimizing(13) is sufficient for Pareto optimality as long as 119908
119896gt 0 (for
119896 = 1 2 119870) [17]For each Pareto optimal point 119909
119901 there exists a vector
119908 = (1199081 1199082 119908
119870) and a scalar 119901 such that 119909
119901is a solution
to (13) The value of 119901 determines to what extent a method isable to capture all of the Pareto optimal points (with changein vector119908) even when the feasible spacemay be nonconvexWith (13) using higher values for119901 increases the effectivenessof the method in providing the complete Pareto optimal set[18] However using a higher value for 119901 enables one to bettercapture all Pareto optimal points (with change in 119908) Theweighted min-max formulation which is a special case ofthe WGC approach with 119901 = infin has the following format([19 20] and [21])
(P2) min 119910
st 119910 ge 119908119896(119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891119896 (119909)
119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891
119896(119909119896lowast))
119896 = 1 2 119870
119892119897 (119909) le 119887119897 119897 = 1 2 119871
119910 ge 0
(14)
Using (P2) can provide the complete Pareto optimal setso that it provides a necessary condition for Pareto optimality[19]
In set of WGC methods the goal is to minimize theexistence objective functions deviation from amultiobjectivemodel related to an ideal solution Yu [20] called the idealpoint 119909lowast as a utopia point We optimize each objectivefunction separately to reach utopia point and for 119909 isin 119878It means that in this state ideal solution is obtained fromsolving 119870monoobjective problems as follows
(P3) optimize 119891119896 (119909) 119896 = 1 2 119870
st 119892119897 (119909) le 0 119897 = 1 2 119871
(15)
where utopia point coordinates are 1198911(119909lowast1) 1198912(119909lowast2)
119891119870(119909lowast119870) and 119909lowast119870 optimizes 119896th objective Meanwhile
119909119896
lowastis vector of nadir solution So we canminimize119870 problem
for each objective function in solution space (if objectivesmaximizing is supposed) to reach nadir solution
Considering approach (13) if all 119891119896(119909) are of maximizing
type then 119908119896shows weight of objective 119896th (for 119896 =
1 2 119870) with 0 lt 119908119896lt 1 Also 1 le 119901 le infin shows
indicating parameter of 119897119901-norm family Value 119901 indicates
emphasis degree on present deviations so that the biggerthis value is the more emphasis on biggest deviation willbe If 119901 = infin it means that the biggest present deviation isconsidered for optimizing Usually values 119901 = 1 2 and infinare used in computations Anyway value 119901 may depend oninvestors mental criteria Given values 119908
119896 solution obtained
from minimizing the approach (13) is known as a consistentsolution
So far WGC approach has been widely applied inengineering sciences (see eg [22]) There is no significantstudy performed about application WGC method to solveoptimization portfolio problems On the other hand consid-ering WGC method ability to represent Pareto optimal setit seems that there are no researches performed about usingthis method for optimizing the APs so far So another partof our motivations to present this paper is WGC methodrsquoseffectiveness in representing a complete set of Pareto optimalpoints in optimizing portfolio problems
Using approach (13) we formulate (P1) in the formof (P4)based on the WGC method
(P4) min 1199081(119885lowast1+ 1198651
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus 1198652
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+ 1199083(119885lowast3+ 1198653
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
1119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(16)
where 119908119896is relative importance weight of objective 119896th (for
119896 = 1 2 3) where 0 lt 119908119896lt 1 and 119908
1+ 1199082+ 1199083=
1 Also 119885lowast119896 (for 119896 = 1 2 3) is utopia value of objectivefunction 119896th (here maximum value of objective function 119896this in solution space) 119885119896
lowast(for 119896 = 1 2 3) is nadir value of
objective function 119896th (here minimum value of objectivefunction 119896th is in solution space) and 119865
119896(for 119896 = 1 2 3) is
the 119896th objective function 1198651is the risk objective function
1198652is return objective function and 119865
3is the initial cost
objective function The tradeoffs between objectives is doneby changing119908
119896values 119901 is parameter of final utility function
for which values 1 2 and infin are supposed in this paperConsidering (P4) interobjectives trade-offs general processis as follows first we suppose that investor wants importance
6 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
weight of risk objective be 09 So using WGC methodanalyst obtains a set of tradeoffs between return and costobjectives by assuming importance weight of risk objectiveto be constant heshe decreases importance weight of riskobjective by a descending manner and tradeoffs betweeninvestment return and cost objectives will be reregistered
22 The VaR Method One of the most popular techniquesto determine maximum expected loss of an asset or portfolioin a future time horizon and with a given explicit confidencelevel (VaR definition) is the VaRmethod Dowd et al [23] forcomputation of the VaR associated with normally distributedlog-returns in a long-term applied the following
VaRAP (119879) = 119872 minus119872cl
= 119872 minus exp (119877AP119879 + 120572cl120590APradic119879 + ln (119872))
(17)
Generally considering (17) VaRAP(119879) is VaR of total APfor time horizon understudy in the future 119879 days and 119872 istotal present value of AP assets So in here we have
119872 =
119898
sum
119894=1
119872119894(existent) (18)
Also 120590AP is standard deviation of AP and the VaRconfidence level is cl and we consider VaR over a horizon of119879 days119872cl is the (1 minus cl) percentile (or critical percentile) ofthe terminal value of the portfolio after a holding period of119879 days and 120572cl is the standard normal variate associated withour chosen confidence level (eg so 120572cl = minus1645 if we havea 95 confidence level see eg [24])
3 Case Study
In order to perform tradeoffs or future risk coverage ordiversify exchange reserves Iranian banks perform exchangebuying and selling One of these banks is Bank Melli Iran
which officially started its banking operation in 1928 Theinitial capital of this Iranian bank was about 20000000 RialsNowadays enjoying 85 years of experience and about 3200branches this bank as an important Iran economic andfinance agency has an important role in proving coun-tryrsquos enormous economic goals by absorbing communityrsquoswandering capitals and using them for production Alsofrom international viewpoint Bank Melli Iran with 16 activebranches enjoys distinguished position in rendering bankingservices The most important actions of Bank Melli Iran ininternational field include opening various deposit accountsperforming currency drafts affairs issuing currency under-writing opening confirming covering and conformingdocumentary credits and so forth
Here we consider an exchange AP including five mainexchanges in Iran Melli bank exchange investment portfolioThese five exchanges include US dollar England poundSwitzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen The point whichinvestor Melli bank considers after yielding the results is theproportion of US dollars Right now Iran foreign exchangeinvestment policy necessitates less concentration on thisexchange Understudy data include these five exchanges dailyrate from 25 March 2002 to 19 March 2012 This studied termis short because of lack of exchange monorate regime in Iranexchange policy in years before 2002
Here 1199091 1199092 1199093 1199094and 119909
5are exchanges proportion of
USdollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan100 yen of Melli bank total exchange AP respectively Table 1illustrates statistic indices obtained from these five exchangesdaily rates during the study term
Also variance-covariancematrix obtained from these fiveexchanges daily return during the study term is according toTable 2
Present value of Iran Melli bank exchange AP andminimum aspiration level of AP return in the last day ofstudy term (19 March 2012) along with other information arepresented in Table 3
By considering information of Table 3 we can rewrite(P4) in the form
(P5) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(
119885lowast3+ (8904 (341581517119909
1minus 1909254) + 17934 (341581517119909
2minus 36913126) + 8837 (341581517119909
3minus 18897816)
+14111 (3415815171199094minus 278506130) + 9150 (341581517119909
5minus 5355191))
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(19)
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 7
After simplifying and normalizing constraint coefficientsrelated to cost objective (by dividing above constraint
coefficients in the biggest mentioned constraint coefficient)we can rewrite (P5) in the form
(P6) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(119885lowast3+ (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(20)
Table 1 Illustration of statistic indices drawnout of daily rates of fiveexchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March2002 to 19 March 2012
Exchange (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) 119864(119877119894) Var(119877
119894)
USA dollar 0000084973 0005978413England pound 0000272112 0000050975Switzerland frank 0000314821 0006777075Euro 0000349021 0000028221Japan 100 yen 0000170238 0000034704
where the utopia and nadir values of each objective functionare according to Table 4
Considering Table 4 in the best condition third objectivefunction is of 119862minusAP variable kind and offers assets sellingpolicy where normalized income is equal to 02948852 unitAlso and in the worst conditions it is of 119862+AP variablekind and offers assets buying policy where normalizedcost value (disregard to its mark) is equal to 02123636unit So considering (P6) and information of Table 4 wehave
(P7) min 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119901
+1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119901
+1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(21)
To optimize (P7) we first suppose 119901 = 1 and optimizethe (P7) by changing objectives importance weight To solve(P7) objectives are given various weights in 99 iterations(9 11-fold set of iterations) All obtained results from solving(P7) are presented in Table 8 (in the Appendix (optimal value
of third objective function is considered in the form of minus1198653
in all figures and tables of the appendix for this paper Thepositive values and values which are specified by negativemark (disregard to their mark) are considered as incomesand buying costs resp)) by software Lingo 110 In Table 8
8 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 2 Daily return variance-covariance matrix of five exchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March 2002 to 19 March2012
Exchange USA dollar England pound Switzerland Frank Euro Japan 100 yenUSA dollar 000597841295 minus000000275182 000000333301 000000233057 000000336630England pound 000005097503 000001564795 000001375091 000000578037Switzerland frank 000677707505 000002699918 000001576213Euro 000002822086 000000969165Japan 100 yen 000003470445
Table 3 Present value price number existent proportion daily return mean and minimum aspiration level of return specifics of fiveexchanges USA dollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen in Melli bank exchange AP in 19 March 2012
Exchange 119872119894 (existent) 119901
119894119873119894 (existent) 119909
119894 (existent) 119864(119877119894) 119864(119877
119894) times 119909119894 (existent)
USA dollar 17000000000 8904 1909254 0005589454 0000084973 0000000475England pound 662000000000 17934 36913126 0108065349 0000272112 0000029406Switzerland frank 167000000000 8837 18897816 0055324469 0000314821 0000017417Euro 3930000000000 14111 278506130 0815343090 0000349021 0000284572Japan 100 yen 49000000000 9150 5355191 0015677638 0000170238 0000002669
Total 4825000000000 341581517 1 0000334539
two first columns show numbers of iterations in 9 11-foldset of iterations Three second columns indicate changes ofobjectives importance weight In five third columns the valueof optimal proportion of each exchange in exchange APconsidering the changes of objectives weights is shown andfinally in last three columns optimal values of each objectiveare shown in each iteration
31 Evaluating Pareto Optimal Points Specifics In order toanalyze Pareto optimal points in this section consideringoptimal results of each objective we examine Pareto optimalpoint set for obtained results and indicate that all obtainedresults are considered as Pareto optimal point set First letsintroduce some vector variables 119883119895lowast is optimal vector ofmodel variables in iteration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) ofsolution (ie vector of optimal solution in iteration 119895th ofsolution) and 119865
119895lowast is vector of objectives optimal value initeration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Also 119882119895lowast isvector of objectives importance weight in iteration 119895th (for119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Table 8 presents a set of obtainedoptimal points based on WGC method It also should bementioned that all optimal values of third column are ofvariable 119862minusAP and finally sell policy of AP existent assets isoffered for future investment So the purpose is to maximizethe positive values of minus119865
3column For better understanding
Figure 2 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7)along with utopia and nadir points
One of the most important specifics of Pareto optimalset is that all optimal points are nondominated Let usdefine being dominated to make clear the concept of beingnondominated
Definition 6 A solution 119909119894lowast is said to dominate the othersolution119883119895lowast if the following conditions are satisfied
(i) the solution 119909119894lowast is not worse than119883119895lowast in all objectivesor 119891119896(119909119894lowast) ⋫ 119891119896(119883119895lowast) for all 119896 = 1 2 119870
(ii) the solution 119909119894lowast is strictly better than 119883119895lowast in at leastone objective or 119891
119896(119909119894lowast) ⊲ 119891
119896(119883119895lowast) for at least one
119896 = 1 2 119870
We can say about the obtained results in Table 8 thatall solutions in each set of iterations is nondominated Forexample consider iterations 119895 = 7 and 119895 = 8 The results ofthese two iterations will be
1198827lowast= (09 006 004)
1198837lowast= (0 0 0008756436 0991243600 0)
1198657lowast= (00000287172 00003487215 00033819825)
1198828lowast= (09 007 003)
1198838lowast= (0 0 0004811658 0995188300 0)
1198658lowast= (00000283654 00003488564 00022219703)
(22)
Considering results of the two above iterations at risk09 importance weight and by increasing importance weightof return objective and decreasing investment importanceweight of cost objective by considering vectors1198837lowast and1198838lowastthere is any proportion for dollar pound and Japan 100 yen
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 9
exchanges in optimal AP and proportion of frank (Euro)exchange is decreasing (increasing) in each set of iterations
What is implied from values of vectors 1198657lowast and 1198658lowast is thatrisk objective has improved 00000003518 unit and the thirdobjective offers assets selling policy to decrease investmentinitial cost objective so that this normalized income in eachtwo iterations will be 00033819825 unit and 00022219703unit respectively In other words the extent of incomeresulting of selling the assets has become worse Also theresults indicate that return value in these two iterations hasimproved 00000001349 unit In this case it is said that riskobjective decreases by decrease of selling the assets in eachset of iterations and vice versa So considering Definition 6solutions of these two iterations are nondominated
Arrangement manner of Pareto optimal set relative toutopia and nadir points is shown in Figure 2 Pareto optimalset is established between two mentioned points so that itis more inclined toward utopia point and has the maximum
distance from nadir point Actually external points of solu-tion space which are close to utopia point and far from nadirpoint are introduced as Pareto optimal pointsThis somehowindicates that interobjectives tradeoffs are in a manner thatdistance between Pareto optimal space and utopia point willbeminimized and distance between Pareto optimal space andnadir point will be maximized
32 Making Changes in Value of Norm 119901 Because 119901 valuechanges are by investorrsquos discretion now we suppose thatinvestor considers value of norm 119901 = 2 andinfin We optimized(P7) by software Lingo 110 under condition 119901 = 2 andTable 9 (in The Appendix) shows all results in 99 iterationsAccording towhatwas said about119901 = 1 under this conditionPareto optimal space is between utopia and nadir points tooand tends to become closer to utopia point (see Figure 3)
Finally we optimize (P7) under condition 119901 = infin In thiscondition considering (P2) approach (P7) is aweightedmin-max model So (P7) can be rewritten in the form of (P8) asfollows
(P8) min 119910
st 119910 ge 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119910 ge 1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119910 ge 1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
119910 ge 0
(23)
Table 4 Utopia and nadir values related to each one of theobjectives
Function Utopia Nadirminus1198651
minus00000182639 minus00067770751198652
000034902100 00000849730minus1198653
029488520000 minus0212363600
Results of solving (P8) by software Lingo 110 in 99iterations are shown in Table 10 (in the Appendix) AlsoFigure 4 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving thismodel
Considering results obtained from values changes ofnorm 119901 it can be added that except nadir point and iterations119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 (from results of norm 119901 = infin) asset
Table 5 Results obtained for each objective considering norms of119901 = 1 2 andinfin and by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min (1198651) 0000371116 0001022573 0001388164
Max (1198652) 0000341307 0000297773 0000295503
Max (minus1198653) 0067135173 0172916129 0192074262
sell policy will be offered in other results obtained from threeexamined states
33 Results Evaluation The most important criterion forexamining obtained results is results conformity level withinvestorrsquos proposed goals As mentioned before considering
10 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 6 Information obtained of WGC method results with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Objective function 119865lowast
1119865lowast
2minus119865lowast
3
Objective name Risk Rate of return Income Cost119901 = 1
Mean 0000385422 0000275693 0141152048 mdashMin 0000028221 0000170333 0000806933 mdashMax 0006777075 0000349021 0294885220 mdash
119901 = 2
Mean 0000610893 0000284013 0161748217 mdashMin 0000028248 0000172807 0001455988 mdashMax 0002308977 0000348946 0281424452 mdash
119901 = infin
Mean 0000789979 0000281186 0179850336 minus0002756123lowast
Min 0000027132 0000172041 0000094981 minus0000255917lowastlowast
Max 0003797903 0000348978 0286319160 minus0007842553lowastlowastlowast
Notes lowastMean of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastMinimum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastlowastMaximum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)
Table 7 Summary of Table 6 information
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min Risk 0000028221 0000028248 0000027132Max Rate ofReturn 0000349021 0000348946 0000348978
Max Income 0294885220 0281424452 0286319160Min Cost mdash mdash 0000255917
Iran foreign exchange investment policy investor considersless concentration on US dollar For example the results ofTable 8 indicate that in each 11-fold set of iterations by having1199081constant and increasing 119908
2and decreasing 119908
3 we see
decrease of dollar and Japan 100 yen exchanges proportionand increase of Euro exchange proportion in each set ofiterations so that proportion of these exchanges is often zeroAlso there is no guarantee for investment on pound exchangeIt can be said about frank exchange that there is the firstincrease and then decrease trends in each set of iterations
Finally Tables 8 9 and 10 indicate that the average ofthe most exchange proportion in AP belongs to the Euroexchange followed by the Japan 100 yen frank dollar andpound exchanges respectively So considering all resultsobtained with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin investor obtainshisher first goal
Figures 5 6 and 7 show arrangement of Pareto optimal ofall results of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin norms between two utopia andnadir points in three different bidimensional graphs Figure 5shows tradeoffs between two first and third objectives As itis seen in this graph increase of investment risk objectiveresults in increase of income objective obtained from assetssell and vice versa decrease of obtained income value is alongwith decrease of investment risk value Also Tables 8 9 and10 show these changes in each 11-fold set of two 119865
1and minus119865
3
columns results
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 2 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 1
Figure 6 shows tradeoffs between two second and thirdobjectives The objective is increase of investment returnvalue and increase of income value obtained from assets sellResults correctness can be seen in Figure 6 too
Also tradeoffs between two first and second objectivescan be examined in Figure 7 Because the purpose is decreaseof first objective and increase of second objective so thisgraph indicates that we will expect increase (or decrease)of investment return value by increase (or decrease) ofinvestment risk value
Now suppose that investor makes no difference betweenobjectives and wants analyst to reexamine the results fordifferent norms of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin considering the equalityof objectives importance So by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
and1199081+1199082+1199083= 1 the objectives results will be according
to Table 5Complete specifications related toTable 5 information are
inserted in iteration 119895 = 100 of Tables 8 9 and 10 As itis clear in Table 5 third objective offers assets sell policy byassumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083 On the other hand under
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 5
3
1
4
2
F
F2
1
S
Figure 1 Illustration of feasible space and ideal solution for abiobjective problem with objectives maximize and minimize
119897119901-norm =
119870
sum
119896=1
119908119896(119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891119896 (119909)
119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891
119896(119909119896lowast))
119901
1119901
(13)
where 119909 = (1199091 1199092 119909
119898) The formulation in (13) is called
standard weighted global criterion formulation Minimizing(13) is sufficient for Pareto optimality as long as 119908
119896gt 0 (for
119896 = 1 2 119870) [17]For each Pareto optimal point 119909
119901 there exists a vector
119908 = (1199081 1199082 119908
119870) and a scalar 119901 such that 119909
119901is a solution
to (13) The value of 119901 determines to what extent a method isable to capture all of the Pareto optimal points (with changein vector119908) even when the feasible spacemay be nonconvexWith (13) using higher values for119901 increases the effectivenessof the method in providing the complete Pareto optimal set[18] However using a higher value for 119901 enables one to bettercapture all Pareto optimal points (with change in 119908) Theweighted min-max formulation which is a special case ofthe WGC approach with 119901 = infin has the following format([19 20] and [21])
(P2) min 119910
st 119910 ge 119908119896(119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891119896 (119909)
119891119896(119909lowast119896) minus 119891
119896(119909119896lowast))
119896 = 1 2 119870
119892119897 (119909) le 119887119897 119897 = 1 2 119871
119910 ge 0
(14)
Using (P2) can provide the complete Pareto optimal setso that it provides a necessary condition for Pareto optimality[19]
In set of WGC methods the goal is to minimize theexistence objective functions deviation from amultiobjectivemodel related to an ideal solution Yu [20] called the idealpoint 119909lowast as a utopia point We optimize each objectivefunction separately to reach utopia point and for 119909 isin 119878It means that in this state ideal solution is obtained fromsolving 119870monoobjective problems as follows
(P3) optimize 119891119896 (119909) 119896 = 1 2 119870
st 119892119897 (119909) le 0 119897 = 1 2 119871
(15)
where utopia point coordinates are 1198911(119909lowast1) 1198912(119909lowast2)
119891119870(119909lowast119870) and 119909lowast119870 optimizes 119896th objective Meanwhile
119909119896
lowastis vector of nadir solution So we canminimize119870 problem
for each objective function in solution space (if objectivesmaximizing is supposed) to reach nadir solution
Considering approach (13) if all 119891119896(119909) are of maximizing
type then 119908119896shows weight of objective 119896th (for 119896 =
1 2 119870) with 0 lt 119908119896lt 1 Also 1 le 119901 le infin shows
indicating parameter of 119897119901-norm family Value 119901 indicates
emphasis degree on present deviations so that the biggerthis value is the more emphasis on biggest deviation willbe If 119901 = infin it means that the biggest present deviation isconsidered for optimizing Usually values 119901 = 1 2 and infinare used in computations Anyway value 119901 may depend oninvestors mental criteria Given values 119908
119896 solution obtained
from minimizing the approach (13) is known as a consistentsolution
So far WGC approach has been widely applied inengineering sciences (see eg [22]) There is no significantstudy performed about application WGC method to solveoptimization portfolio problems On the other hand consid-ering WGC method ability to represent Pareto optimal setit seems that there are no researches performed about usingthis method for optimizing the APs so far So another partof our motivations to present this paper is WGC methodrsquoseffectiveness in representing a complete set of Pareto optimalpoints in optimizing portfolio problems
Using approach (13) we formulate (P1) in the formof (P4)based on the WGC method
(P4) min 1199081(119885lowast1+ 1198651
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus 1198652
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+ 1199083(119885lowast3+ 1198653
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
1119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(16)
where 119908119896is relative importance weight of objective 119896th (for
119896 = 1 2 3) where 0 lt 119908119896lt 1 and 119908
1+ 1199082+ 1199083=
1 Also 119885lowast119896 (for 119896 = 1 2 3) is utopia value of objectivefunction 119896th (here maximum value of objective function 119896this in solution space) 119885119896
lowast(for 119896 = 1 2 3) is nadir value of
objective function 119896th (here minimum value of objectivefunction 119896th is in solution space) and 119865
119896(for 119896 = 1 2 3) is
the 119896th objective function 1198651is the risk objective function
1198652is return objective function and 119865
3is the initial cost
objective function The tradeoffs between objectives is doneby changing119908
119896values 119901 is parameter of final utility function
for which values 1 2 and infin are supposed in this paperConsidering (P4) interobjectives trade-offs general processis as follows first we suppose that investor wants importance
6 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
weight of risk objective be 09 So using WGC methodanalyst obtains a set of tradeoffs between return and costobjectives by assuming importance weight of risk objectiveto be constant heshe decreases importance weight of riskobjective by a descending manner and tradeoffs betweeninvestment return and cost objectives will be reregistered
22 The VaR Method One of the most popular techniquesto determine maximum expected loss of an asset or portfolioin a future time horizon and with a given explicit confidencelevel (VaR definition) is the VaRmethod Dowd et al [23] forcomputation of the VaR associated with normally distributedlog-returns in a long-term applied the following
VaRAP (119879) = 119872 minus119872cl
= 119872 minus exp (119877AP119879 + 120572cl120590APradic119879 + ln (119872))
(17)
Generally considering (17) VaRAP(119879) is VaR of total APfor time horizon understudy in the future 119879 days and 119872 istotal present value of AP assets So in here we have
119872 =
119898
sum
119894=1
119872119894(existent) (18)
Also 120590AP is standard deviation of AP and the VaRconfidence level is cl and we consider VaR over a horizon of119879 days119872cl is the (1 minus cl) percentile (or critical percentile) ofthe terminal value of the portfolio after a holding period of119879 days and 120572cl is the standard normal variate associated withour chosen confidence level (eg so 120572cl = minus1645 if we havea 95 confidence level see eg [24])
3 Case Study
In order to perform tradeoffs or future risk coverage ordiversify exchange reserves Iranian banks perform exchangebuying and selling One of these banks is Bank Melli Iran
which officially started its banking operation in 1928 Theinitial capital of this Iranian bank was about 20000000 RialsNowadays enjoying 85 years of experience and about 3200branches this bank as an important Iran economic andfinance agency has an important role in proving coun-tryrsquos enormous economic goals by absorbing communityrsquoswandering capitals and using them for production Alsofrom international viewpoint Bank Melli Iran with 16 activebranches enjoys distinguished position in rendering bankingservices The most important actions of Bank Melli Iran ininternational field include opening various deposit accountsperforming currency drafts affairs issuing currency under-writing opening confirming covering and conformingdocumentary credits and so forth
Here we consider an exchange AP including five mainexchanges in Iran Melli bank exchange investment portfolioThese five exchanges include US dollar England poundSwitzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen The point whichinvestor Melli bank considers after yielding the results is theproportion of US dollars Right now Iran foreign exchangeinvestment policy necessitates less concentration on thisexchange Understudy data include these five exchanges dailyrate from 25 March 2002 to 19 March 2012 This studied termis short because of lack of exchange monorate regime in Iranexchange policy in years before 2002
Here 1199091 1199092 1199093 1199094and 119909
5are exchanges proportion of
USdollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan100 yen of Melli bank total exchange AP respectively Table 1illustrates statistic indices obtained from these five exchangesdaily rates during the study term
Also variance-covariancematrix obtained from these fiveexchanges daily return during the study term is according toTable 2
Present value of Iran Melli bank exchange AP andminimum aspiration level of AP return in the last day ofstudy term (19 March 2012) along with other information arepresented in Table 3
By considering information of Table 3 we can rewrite(P4) in the form
(P5) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(
119885lowast3+ (8904 (341581517119909
1minus 1909254) + 17934 (341581517119909
2minus 36913126) + 8837 (341581517119909
3minus 18897816)
+14111 (3415815171199094minus 278506130) + 9150 (341581517119909
5minus 5355191))
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(19)
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 7
After simplifying and normalizing constraint coefficientsrelated to cost objective (by dividing above constraint
coefficients in the biggest mentioned constraint coefficient)we can rewrite (P5) in the form
(P6) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(119885lowast3+ (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(20)
Table 1 Illustration of statistic indices drawnout of daily rates of fiveexchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March2002 to 19 March 2012
Exchange (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) 119864(119877119894) Var(119877
119894)
USA dollar 0000084973 0005978413England pound 0000272112 0000050975Switzerland frank 0000314821 0006777075Euro 0000349021 0000028221Japan 100 yen 0000170238 0000034704
where the utopia and nadir values of each objective functionare according to Table 4
Considering Table 4 in the best condition third objectivefunction is of 119862minusAP variable kind and offers assets sellingpolicy where normalized income is equal to 02948852 unitAlso and in the worst conditions it is of 119862+AP variablekind and offers assets buying policy where normalizedcost value (disregard to its mark) is equal to 02123636unit So considering (P6) and information of Table 4 wehave
(P7) min 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119901
+1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119901
+1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(21)
To optimize (P7) we first suppose 119901 = 1 and optimizethe (P7) by changing objectives importance weight To solve(P7) objectives are given various weights in 99 iterations(9 11-fold set of iterations) All obtained results from solving(P7) are presented in Table 8 (in the Appendix (optimal value
of third objective function is considered in the form of minus1198653
in all figures and tables of the appendix for this paper Thepositive values and values which are specified by negativemark (disregard to their mark) are considered as incomesand buying costs resp)) by software Lingo 110 In Table 8
8 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 2 Daily return variance-covariance matrix of five exchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March 2002 to 19 March2012
Exchange USA dollar England pound Switzerland Frank Euro Japan 100 yenUSA dollar 000597841295 minus000000275182 000000333301 000000233057 000000336630England pound 000005097503 000001564795 000001375091 000000578037Switzerland frank 000677707505 000002699918 000001576213Euro 000002822086 000000969165Japan 100 yen 000003470445
Table 3 Present value price number existent proportion daily return mean and minimum aspiration level of return specifics of fiveexchanges USA dollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen in Melli bank exchange AP in 19 March 2012
Exchange 119872119894 (existent) 119901
119894119873119894 (existent) 119909
119894 (existent) 119864(119877119894) 119864(119877
119894) times 119909119894 (existent)
USA dollar 17000000000 8904 1909254 0005589454 0000084973 0000000475England pound 662000000000 17934 36913126 0108065349 0000272112 0000029406Switzerland frank 167000000000 8837 18897816 0055324469 0000314821 0000017417Euro 3930000000000 14111 278506130 0815343090 0000349021 0000284572Japan 100 yen 49000000000 9150 5355191 0015677638 0000170238 0000002669
Total 4825000000000 341581517 1 0000334539
two first columns show numbers of iterations in 9 11-foldset of iterations Three second columns indicate changes ofobjectives importance weight In five third columns the valueof optimal proportion of each exchange in exchange APconsidering the changes of objectives weights is shown andfinally in last three columns optimal values of each objectiveare shown in each iteration
31 Evaluating Pareto Optimal Points Specifics In order toanalyze Pareto optimal points in this section consideringoptimal results of each objective we examine Pareto optimalpoint set for obtained results and indicate that all obtainedresults are considered as Pareto optimal point set First letsintroduce some vector variables 119883119895lowast is optimal vector ofmodel variables in iteration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) ofsolution (ie vector of optimal solution in iteration 119895th ofsolution) and 119865
119895lowast is vector of objectives optimal value initeration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Also 119882119895lowast isvector of objectives importance weight in iteration 119895th (for119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Table 8 presents a set of obtainedoptimal points based on WGC method It also should bementioned that all optimal values of third column are ofvariable 119862minusAP and finally sell policy of AP existent assets isoffered for future investment So the purpose is to maximizethe positive values of minus119865
3column For better understanding
Figure 2 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7)along with utopia and nadir points
One of the most important specifics of Pareto optimalset is that all optimal points are nondominated Let usdefine being dominated to make clear the concept of beingnondominated
Definition 6 A solution 119909119894lowast is said to dominate the othersolution119883119895lowast if the following conditions are satisfied
(i) the solution 119909119894lowast is not worse than119883119895lowast in all objectivesor 119891119896(119909119894lowast) ⋫ 119891119896(119883119895lowast) for all 119896 = 1 2 119870
(ii) the solution 119909119894lowast is strictly better than 119883119895lowast in at leastone objective or 119891
119896(119909119894lowast) ⊲ 119891
119896(119883119895lowast) for at least one
119896 = 1 2 119870
We can say about the obtained results in Table 8 thatall solutions in each set of iterations is nondominated Forexample consider iterations 119895 = 7 and 119895 = 8 The results ofthese two iterations will be
1198827lowast= (09 006 004)
1198837lowast= (0 0 0008756436 0991243600 0)
1198657lowast= (00000287172 00003487215 00033819825)
1198828lowast= (09 007 003)
1198838lowast= (0 0 0004811658 0995188300 0)
1198658lowast= (00000283654 00003488564 00022219703)
(22)
Considering results of the two above iterations at risk09 importance weight and by increasing importance weightof return objective and decreasing investment importanceweight of cost objective by considering vectors1198837lowast and1198838lowastthere is any proportion for dollar pound and Japan 100 yen
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 9
exchanges in optimal AP and proportion of frank (Euro)exchange is decreasing (increasing) in each set of iterations
What is implied from values of vectors 1198657lowast and 1198658lowast is thatrisk objective has improved 00000003518 unit and the thirdobjective offers assets selling policy to decrease investmentinitial cost objective so that this normalized income in eachtwo iterations will be 00033819825 unit and 00022219703unit respectively In other words the extent of incomeresulting of selling the assets has become worse Also theresults indicate that return value in these two iterations hasimproved 00000001349 unit In this case it is said that riskobjective decreases by decrease of selling the assets in eachset of iterations and vice versa So considering Definition 6solutions of these two iterations are nondominated
Arrangement manner of Pareto optimal set relative toutopia and nadir points is shown in Figure 2 Pareto optimalset is established between two mentioned points so that itis more inclined toward utopia point and has the maximum
distance from nadir point Actually external points of solu-tion space which are close to utopia point and far from nadirpoint are introduced as Pareto optimal pointsThis somehowindicates that interobjectives tradeoffs are in a manner thatdistance between Pareto optimal space and utopia point willbeminimized and distance between Pareto optimal space andnadir point will be maximized
32 Making Changes in Value of Norm 119901 Because 119901 valuechanges are by investorrsquos discretion now we suppose thatinvestor considers value of norm 119901 = 2 andinfin We optimized(P7) by software Lingo 110 under condition 119901 = 2 andTable 9 (in The Appendix) shows all results in 99 iterationsAccording towhatwas said about119901 = 1 under this conditionPareto optimal space is between utopia and nadir points tooand tends to become closer to utopia point (see Figure 3)
Finally we optimize (P7) under condition 119901 = infin In thiscondition considering (P2) approach (P7) is aweightedmin-max model So (P7) can be rewritten in the form of (P8) asfollows
(P8) min 119910
st 119910 ge 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119910 ge 1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119910 ge 1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
119910 ge 0
(23)
Table 4 Utopia and nadir values related to each one of theobjectives
Function Utopia Nadirminus1198651
minus00000182639 minus00067770751198652
000034902100 00000849730minus1198653
029488520000 minus0212363600
Results of solving (P8) by software Lingo 110 in 99iterations are shown in Table 10 (in the Appendix) AlsoFigure 4 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving thismodel
Considering results obtained from values changes ofnorm 119901 it can be added that except nadir point and iterations119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 (from results of norm 119901 = infin) asset
Table 5 Results obtained for each objective considering norms of119901 = 1 2 andinfin and by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min (1198651) 0000371116 0001022573 0001388164
Max (1198652) 0000341307 0000297773 0000295503
Max (minus1198653) 0067135173 0172916129 0192074262
sell policy will be offered in other results obtained from threeexamined states
33 Results Evaluation The most important criterion forexamining obtained results is results conformity level withinvestorrsquos proposed goals As mentioned before considering
10 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 6 Information obtained of WGC method results with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Objective function 119865lowast
1119865lowast
2minus119865lowast
3
Objective name Risk Rate of return Income Cost119901 = 1
Mean 0000385422 0000275693 0141152048 mdashMin 0000028221 0000170333 0000806933 mdashMax 0006777075 0000349021 0294885220 mdash
119901 = 2
Mean 0000610893 0000284013 0161748217 mdashMin 0000028248 0000172807 0001455988 mdashMax 0002308977 0000348946 0281424452 mdash
119901 = infin
Mean 0000789979 0000281186 0179850336 minus0002756123lowast
Min 0000027132 0000172041 0000094981 minus0000255917lowastlowast
Max 0003797903 0000348978 0286319160 minus0007842553lowastlowastlowast
Notes lowastMean of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastMinimum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastlowastMaximum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)
Table 7 Summary of Table 6 information
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min Risk 0000028221 0000028248 0000027132Max Rate ofReturn 0000349021 0000348946 0000348978
Max Income 0294885220 0281424452 0286319160Min Cost mdash mdash 0000255917
Iran foreign exchange investment policy investor considersless concentration on US dollar For example the results ofTable 8 indicate that in each 11-fold set of iterations by having1199081constant and increasing 119908
2and decreasing 119908
3 we see
decrease of dollar and Japan 100 yen exchanges proportionand increase of Euro exchange proportion in each set ofiterations so that proportion of these exchanges is often zeroAlso there is no guarantee for investment on pound exchangeIt can be said about frank exchange that there is the firstincrease and then decrease trends in each set of iterations
Finally Tables 8 9 and 10 indicate that the average ofthe most exchange proportion in AP belongs to the Euroexchange followed by the Japan 100 yen frank dollar andpound exchanges respectively So considering all resultsobtained with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin investor obtainshisher first goal
Figures 5 6 and 7 show arrangement of Pareto optimal ofall results of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin norms between two utopia andnadir points in three different bidimensional graphs Figure 5shows tradeoffs between two first and third objectives As itis seen in this graph increase of investment risk objectiveresults in increase of income objective obtained from assetssell and vice versa decrease of obtained income value is alongwith decrease of investment risk value Also Tables 8 9 and10 show these changes in each 11-fold set of two 119865
1and minus119865
3
columns results
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 2 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 1
Figure 6 shows tradeoffs between two second and thirdobjectives The objective is increase of investment returnvalue and increase of income value obtained from assets sellResults correctness can be seen in Figure 6 too
Also tradeoffs between two first and second objectivescan be examined in Figure 7 Because the purpose is decreaseof first objective and increase of second objective so thisgraph indicates that we will expect increase (or decrease)of investment return value by increase (or decrease) ofinvestment risk value
Now suppose that investor makes no difference betweenobjectives and wants analyst to reexamine the results fordifferent norms of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin considering the equalityof objectives importance So by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
and1199081+1199082+1199083= 1 the objectives results will be according
to Table 5Complete specifications related toTable 5 information are
inserted in iteration 119895 = 100 of Tables 8 9 and 10 As itis clear in Table 5 third objective offers assets sell policy byassumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083 On the other hand under
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
6 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
weight of risk objective be 09 So using WGC methodanalyst obtains a set of tradeoffs between return and costobjectives by assuming importance weight of risk objectiveto be constant heshe decreases importance weight of riskobjective by a descending manner and tradeoffs betweeninvestment return and cost objectives will be reregistered
22 The VaR Method One of the most popular techniquesto determine maximum expected loss of an asset or portfolioin a future time horizon and with a given explicit confidencelevel (VaR definition) is the VaRmethod Dowd et al [23] forcomputation of the VaR associated with normally distributedlog-returns in a long-term applied the following
VaRAP (119879) = 119872 minus119872cl
= 119872 minus exp (119877AP119879 + 120572cl120590APradic119879 + ln (119872))
(17)
Generally considering (17) VaRAP(119879) is VaR of total APfor time horizon understudy in the future 119879 days and 119872 istotal present value of AP assets So in here we have
119872 =
119898
sum
119894=1
119872119894(existent) (18)
Also 120590AP is standard deviation of AP and the VaRconfidence level is cl and we consider VaR over a horizon of119879 days119872cl is the (1 minus cl) percentile (or critical percentile) ofthe terminal value of the portfolio after a holding period of119879 days and 120572cl is the standard normal variate associated withour chosen confidence level (eg so 120572cl = minus1645 if we havea 95 confidence level see eg [24])
3 Case Study
In order to perform tradeoffs or future risk coverage ordiversify exchange reserves Iranian banks perform exchangebuying and selling One of these banks is Bank Melli Iran
which officially started its banking operation in 1928 Theinitial capital of this Iranian bank was about 20000000 RialsNowadays enjoying 85 years of experience and about 3200branches this bank as an important Iran economic andfinance agency has an important role in proving coun-tryrsquos enormous economic goals by absorbing communityrsquoswandering capitals and using them for production Alsofrom international viewpoint Bank Melli Iran with 16 activebranches enjoys distinguished position in rendering bankingservices The most important actions of Bank Melli Iran ininternational field include opening various deposit accountsperforming currency drafts affairs issuing currency under-writing opening confirming covering and conformingdocumentary credits and so forth
Here we consider an exchange AP including five mainexchanges in Iran Melli bank exchange investment portfolioThese five exchanges include US dollar England poundSwitzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen The point whichinvestor Melli bank considers after yielding the results is theproportion of US dollars Right now Iran foreign exchangeinvestment policy necessitates less concentration on thisexchange Understudy data include these five exchanges dailyrate from 25 March 2002 to 19 March 2012 This studied termis short because of lack of exchange monorate regime in Iranexchange policy in years before 2002
Here 1199091 1199092 1199093 1199094and 119909
5are exchanges proportion of
USdollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan100 yen of Melli bank total exchange AP respectively Table 1illustrates statistic indices obtained from these five exchangesdaily rates during the study term
Also variance-covariancematrix obtained from these fiveexchanges daily return during the study term is according toTable 2
Present value of Iran Melli bank exchange AP andminimum aspiration level of AP return in the last day ofstudy term (19 March 2012) along with other information arepresented in Table 3
By considering information of Table 3 we can rewrite(P4) in the form
(P5) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(
119885lowast3+ (8904 (341581517119909
1minus 1909254) + 17934 (341581517119909
2minus 36913126) + 8837 (341581517119909
3minus 18897816)
+14111 (3415815171199094minus 278506130) + 9150 (341581517119909
5minus 5355191))
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(19)
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 7
After simplifying and normalizing constraint coefficientsrelated to cost objective (by dividing above constraint
coefficients in the biggest mentioned constraint coefficient)we can rewrite (P5) in the form
(P6) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(119885lowast3+ (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(20)
Table 1 Illustration of statistic indices drawnout of daily rates of fiveexchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March2002 to 19 March 2012
Exchange (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) 119864(119877119894) Var(119877
119894)
USA dollar 0000084973 0005978413England pound 0000272112 0000050975Switzerland frank 0000314821 0006777075Euro 0000349021 0000028221Japan 100 yen 0000170238 0000034704
where the utopia and nadir values of each objective functionare according to Table 4
Considering Table 4 in the best condition third objectivefunction is of 119862minusAP variable kind and offers assets sellingpolicy where normalized income is equal to 02948852 unitAlso and in the worst conditions it is of 119862+AP variablekind and offers assets buying policy where normalizedcost value (disregard to its mark) is equal to 02123636unit So considering (P6) and information of Table 4 wehave
(P7) min 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119901
+1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119901
+1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(21)
To optimize (P7) we first suppose 119901 = 1 and optimizethe (P7) by changing objectives importance weight To solve(P7) objectives are given various weights in 99 iterations(9 11-fold set of iterations) All obtained results from solving(P7) are presented in Table 8 (in the Appendix (optimal value
of third objective function is considered in the form of minus1198653
in all figures and tables of the appendix for this paper Thepositive values and values which are specified by negativemark (disregard to their mark) are considered as incomesand buying costs resp)) by software Lingo 110 In Table 8
8 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 2 Daily return variance-covariance matrix of five exchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March 2002 to 19 March2012
Exchange USA dollar England pound Switzerland Frank Euro Japan 100 yenUSA dollar 000597841295 minus000000275182 000000333301 000000233057 000000336630England pound 000005097503 000001564795 000001375091 000000578037Switzerland frank 000677707505 000002699918 000001576213Euro 000002822086 000000969165Japan 100 yen 000003470445
Table 3 Present value price number existent proportion daily return mean and minimum aspiration level of return specifics of fiveexchanges USA dollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen in Melli bank exchange AP in 19 March 2012
Exchange 119872119894 (existent) 119901
119894119873119894 (existent) 119909
119894 (existent) 119864(119877119894) 119864(119877
119894) times 119909119894 (existent)
USA dollar 17000000000 8904 1909254 0005589454 0000084973 0000000475England pound 662000000000 17934 36913126 0108065349 0000272112 0000029406Switzerland frank 167000000000 8837 18897816 0055324469 0000314821 0000017417Euro 3930000000000 14111 278506130 0815343090 0000349021 0000284572Japan 100 yen 49000000000 9150 5355191 0015677638 0000170238 0000002669
Total 4825000000000 341581517 1 0000334539
two first columns show numbers of iterations in 9 11-foldset of iterations Three second columns indicate changes ofobjectives importance weight In five third columns the valueof optimal proportion of each exchange in exchange APconsidering the changes of objectives weights is shown andfinally in last three columns optimal values of each objectiveare shown in each iteration
31 Evaluating Pareto Optimal Points Specifics In order toanalyze Pareto optimal points in this section consideringoptimal results of each objective we examine Pareto optimalpoint set for obtained results and indicate that all obtainedresults are considered as Pareto optimal point set First letsintroduce some vector variables 119883119895lowast is optimal vector ofmodel variables in iteration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) ofsolution (ie vector of optimal solution in iteration 119895th ofsolution) and 119865
119895lowast is vector of objectives optimal value initeration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Also 119882119895lowast isvector of objectives importance weight in iteration 119895th (for119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Table 8 presents a set of obtainedoptimal points based on WGC method It also should bementioned that all optimal values of third column are ofvariable 119862minusAP and finally sell policy of AP existent assets isoffered for future investment So the purpose is to maximizethe positive values of minus119865
3column For better understanding
Figure 2 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7)along with utopia and nadir points
One of the most important specifics of Pareto optimalset is that all optimal points are nondominated Let usdefine being dominated to make clear the concept of beingnondominated
Definition 6 A solution 119909119894lowast is said to dominate the othersolution119883119895lowast if the following conditions are satisfied
(i) the solution 119909119894lowast is not worse than119883119895lowast in all objectivesor 119891119896(119909119894lowast) ⋫ 119891119896(119883119895lowast) for all 119896 = 1 2 119870
(ii) the solution 119909119894lowast is strictly better than 119883119895lowast in at leastone objective or 119891
119896(119909119894lowast) ⊲ 119891
119896(119883119895lowast) for at least one
119896 = 1 2 119870
We can say about the obtained results in Table 8 thatall solutions in each set of iterations is nondominated Forexample consider iterations 119895 = 7 and 119895 = 8 The results ofthese two iterations will be
1198827lowast= (09 006 004)
1198837lowast= (0 0 0008756436 0991243600 0)
1198657lowast= (00000287172 00003487215 00033819825)
1198828lowast= (09 007 003)
1198838lowast= (0 0 0004811658 0995188300 0)
1198658lowast= (00000283654 00003488564 00022219703)
(22)
Considering results of the two above iterations at risk09 importance weight and by increasing importance weightof return objective and decreasing investment importanceweight of cost objective by considering vectors1198837lowast and1198838lowastthere is any proportion for dollar pound and Japan 100 yen
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 9
exchanges in optimal AP and proportion of frank (Euro)exchange is decreasing (increasing) in each set of iterations
What is implied from values of vectors 1198657lowast and 1198658lowast is thatrisk objective has improved 00000003518 unit and the thirdobjective offers assets selling policy to decrease investmentinitial cost objective so that this normalized income in eachtwo iterations will be 00033819825 unit and 00022219703unit respectively In other words the extent of incomeresulting of selling the assets has become worse Also theresults indicate that return value in these two iterations hasimproved 00000001349 unit In this case it is said that riskobjective decreases by decrease of selling the assets in eachset of iterations and vice versa So considering Definition 6solutions of these two iterations are nondominated
Arrangement manner of Pareto optimal set relative toutopia and nadir points is shown in Figure 2 Pareto optimalset is established between two mentioned points so that itis more inclined toward utopia point and has the maximum
distance from nadir point Actually external points of solu-tion space which are close to utopia point and far from nadirpoint are introduced as Pareto optimal pointsThis somehowindicates that interobjectives tradeoffs are in a manner thatdistance between Pareto optimal space and utopia point willbeminimized and distance between Pareto optimal space andnadir point will be maximized
32 Making Changes in Value of Norm 119901 Because 119901 valuechanges are by investorrsquos discretion now we suppose thatinvestor considers value of norm 119901 = 2 andinfin We optimized(P7) by software Lingo 110 under condition 119901 = 2 andTable 9 (in The Appendix) shows all results in 99 iterationsAccording towhatwas said about119901 = 1 under this conditionPareto optimal space is between utopia and nadir points tooand tends to become closer to utopia point (see Figure 3)
Finally we optimize (P7) under condition 119901 = infin In thiscondition considering (P2) approach (P7) is aweightedmin-max model So (P7) can be rewritten in the form of (P8) asfollows
(P8) min 119910
st 119910 ge 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119910 ge 1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119910 ge 1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
119910 ge 0
(23)
Table 4 Utopia and nadir values related to each one of theobjectives
Function Utopia Nadirminus1198651
minus00000182639 minus00067770751198652
000034902100 00000849730minus1198653
029488520000 minus0212363600
Results of solving (P8) by software Lingo 110 in 99iterations are shown in Table 10 (in the Appendix) AlsoFigure 4 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving thismodel
Considering results obtained from values changes ofnorm 119901 it can be added that except nadir point and iterations119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 (from results of norm 119901 = infin) asset
Table 5 Results obtained for each objective considering norms of119901 = 1 2 andinfin and by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min (1198651) 0000371116 0001022573 0001388164
Max (1198652) 0000341307 0000297773 0000295503
Max (minus1198653) 0067135173 0172916129 0192074262
sell policy will be offered in other results obtained from threeexamined states
33 Results Evaluation The most important criterion forexamining obtained results is results conformity level withinvestorrsquos proposed goals As mentioned before considering
10 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 6 Information obtained of WGC method results with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Objective function 119865lowast
1119865lowast
2minus119865lowast
3
Objective name Risk Rate of return Income Cost119901 = 1
Mean 0000385422 0000275693 0141152048 mdashMin 0000028221 0000170333 0000806933 mdashMax 0006777075 0000349021 0294885220 mdash
119901 = 2
Mean 0000610893 0000284013 0161748217 mdashMin 0000028248 0000172807 0001455988 mdashMax 0002308977 0000348946 0281424452 mdash
119901 = infin
Mean 0000789979 0000281186 0179850336 minus0002756123lowast
Min 0000027132 0000172041 0000094981 minus0000255917lowastlowast
Max 0003797903 0000348978 0286319160 minus0007842553lowastlowastlowast
Notes lowastMean of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastMinimum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastlowastMaximum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)
Table 7 Summary of Table 6 information
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min Risk 0000028221 0000028248 0000027132Max Rate ofReturn 0000349021 0000348946 0000348978
Max Income 0294885220 0281424452 0286319160Min Cost mdash mdash 0000255917
Iran foreign exchange investment policy investor considersless concentration on US dollar For example the results ofTable 8 indicate that in each 11-fold set of iterations by having1199081constant and increasing 119908
2and decreasing 119908
3 we see
decrease of dollar and Japan 100 yen exchanges proportionand increase of Euro exchange proportion in each set ofiterations so that proportion of these exchanges is often zeroAlso there is no guarantee for investment on pound exchangeIt can be said about frank exchange that there is the firstincrease and then decrease trends in each set of iterations
Finally Tables 8 9 and 10 indicate that the average ofthe most exchange proportion in AP belongs to the Euroexchange followed by the Japan 100 yen frank dollar andpound exchanges respectively So considering all resultsobtained with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin investor obtainshisher first goal
Figures 5 6 and 7 show arrangement of Pareto optimal ofall results of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin norms between two utopia andnadir points in three different bidimensional graphs Figure 5shows tradeoffs between two first and third objectives As itis seen in this graph increase of investment risk objectiveresults in increase of income objective obtained from assetssell and vice versa decrease of obtained income value is alongwith decrease of investment risk value Also Tables 8 9 and10 show these changes in each 11-fold set of two 119865
1and minus119865
3
columns results
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 2 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 1
Figure 6 shows tradeoffs between two second and thirdobjectives The objective is increase of investment returnvalue and increase of income value obtained from assets sellResults correctness can be seen in Figure 6 too
Also tradeoffs between two first and second objectivescan be examined in Figure 7 Because the purpose is decreaseof first objective and increase of second objective so thisgraph indicates that we will expect increase (or decrease)of investment return value by increase (or decrease) ofinvestment risk value
Now suppose that investor makes no difference betweenobjectives and wants analyst to reexamine the results fordifferent norms of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin considering the equalityof objectives importance So by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
and1199081+1199082+1199083= 1 the objectives results will be according
to Table 5Complete specifications related toTable 5 information are
inserted in iteration 119895 = 100 of Tables 8 9 and 10 As itis clear in Table 5 third objective offers assets sell policy byassumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083 On the other hand under
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 7
After simplifying and normalizing constraint coefficientsrelated to cost objective (by dividing above constraint
coefficients in the biggest mentioned constraint coefficient)we can rewrite (P5) in the form
(P6) min 1199081
((
(
119885lowast1+ (0005978413119909
2
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4+ 347045119864 minus 05119909
2
5minus 550364119864
minus0611990911199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094+ 673259119864 minus 06119909
11199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864
minus0511990921199094+ 115607119864 minus 05119909
21199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
119885lowast1 minus 1198851lowast
))
)
119901
+1199082(119885lowast2minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
119885lowast2 minus 1198852lowast
)
119901
+1199083(119885lowast3+ (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
119885lowast3 minus 1198853lowast
)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(20)
Table 1 Illustration of statistic indices drawnout of daily rates of fiveexchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March2002 to 19 March 2012
Exchange (for 119894 = 1 2 119898) 119864(119877119894) Var(119877
119894)
USA dollar 0000084973 0005978413England pound 0000272112 0000050975Switzerland frank 0000314821 0006777075Euro 0000349021 0000028221Japan 100 yen 0000170238 0000034704
where the utopia and nadir values of each objective functionare according to Table 4
Considering Table 4 in the best condition third objectivefunction is of 119862minusAP variable kind and offers assets sellingpolicy where normalized income is equal to 02948852 unitAlso and in the worst conditions it is of 119862+AP variablekind and offers assets buying policy where normalizedcost value (disregard to its mark) is equal to 02123636unit So considering (P6) and information of Table 4 wehave
(P7) min 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119901
+1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119901
+1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119901
st119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
(21)
To optimize (P7) we first suppose 119901 = 1 and optimizethe (P7) by changing objectives importance weight To solve(P7) objectives are given various weights in 99 iterations(9 11-fold set of iterations) All obtained results from solving(P7) are presented in Table 8 (in the Appendix (optimal value
of third objective function is considered in the form of minus1198653
in all figures and tables of the appendix for this paper Thepositive values and values which are specified by negativemark (disregard to their mark) are considered as incomesand buying costs resp)) by software Lingo 110 In Table 8
8 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 2 Daily return variance-covariance matrix of five exchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March 2002 to 19 March2012
Exchange USA dollar England pound Switzerland Frank Euro Japan 100 yenUSA dollar 000597841295 minus000000275182 000000333301 000000233057 000000336630England pound 000005097503 000001564795 000001375091 000000578037Switzerland frank 000677707505 000002699918 000001576213Euro 000002822086 000000969165Japan 100 yen 000003470445
Table 3 Present value price number existent proportion daily return mean and minimum aspiration level of return specifics of fiveexchanges USA dollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen in Melli bank exchange AP in 19 March 2012
Exchange 119872119894 (existent) 119901
119894119873119894 (existent) 119909
119894 (existent) 119864(119877119894) 119864(119877
119894) times 119909119894 (existent)
USA dollar 17000000000 8904 1909254 0005589454 0000084973 0000000475England pound 662000000000 17934 36913126 0108065349 0000272112 0000029406Switzerland frank 167000000000 8837 18897816 0055324469 0000314821 0000017417Euro 3930000000000 14111 278506130 0815343090 0000349021 0000284572Japan 100 yen 49000000000 9150 5355191 0015677638 0000170238 0000002669
Total 4825000000000 341581517 1 0000334539
two first columns show numbers of iterations in 9 11-foldset of iterations Three second columns indicate changes ofobjectives importance weight In five third columns the valueof optimal proportion of each exchange in exchange APconsidering the changes of objectives weights is shown andfinally in last three columns optimal values of each objectiveare shown in each iteration
31 Evaluating Pareto Optimal Points Specifics In order toanalyze Pareto optimal points in this section consideringoptimal results of each objective we examine Pareto optimalpoint set for obtained results and indicate that all obtainedresults are considered as Pareto optimal point set First letsintroduce some vector variables 119883119895lowast is optimal vector ofmodel variables in iteration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) ofsolution (ie vector of optimal solution in iteration 119895th ofsolution) and 119865
119895lowast is vector of objectives optimal value initeration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Also 119882119895lowast isvector of objectives importance weight in iteration 119895th (for119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Table 8 presents a set of obtainedoptimal points based on WGC method It also should bementioned that all optimal values of third column are ofvariable 119862minusAP and finally sell policy of AP existent assets isoffered for future investment So the purpose is to maximizethe positive values of minus119865
3column For better understanding
Figure 2 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7)along with utopia and nadir points
One of the most important specifics of Pareto optimalset is that all optimal points are nondominated Let usdefine being dominated to make clear the concept of beingnondominated
Definition 6 A solution 119909119894lowast is said to dominate the othersolution119883119895lowast if the following conditions are satisfied
(i) the solution 119909119894lowast is not worse than119883119895lowast in all objectivesor 119891119896(119909119894lowast) ⋫ 119891119896(119883119895lowast) for all 119896 = 1 2 119870
(ii) the solution 119909119894lowast is strictly better than 119883119895lowast in at leastone objective or 119891
119896(119909119894lowast) ⊲ 119891
119896(119883119895lowast) for at least one
119896 = 1 2 119870
We can say about the obtained results in Table 8 thatall solutions in each set of iterations is nondominated Forexample consider iterations 119895 = 7 and 119895 = 8 The results ofthese two iterations will be
1198827lowast= (09 006 004)
1198837lowast= (0 0 0008756436 0991243600 0)
1198657lowast= (00000287172 00003487215 00033819825)
1198828lowast= (09 007 003)
1198838lowast= (0 0 0004811658 0995188300 0)
1198658lowast= (00000283654 00003488564 00022219703)
(22)
Considering results of the two above iterations at risk09 importance weight and by increasing importance weightof return objective and decreasing investment importanceweight of cost objective by considering vectors1198837lowast and1198838lowastthere is any proportion for dollar pound and Japan 100 yen
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 9
exchanges in optimal AP and proportion of frank (Euro)exchange is decreasing (increasing) in each set of iterations
What is implied from values of vectors 1198657lowast and 1198658lowast is thatrisk objective has improved 00000003518 unit and the thirdobjective offers assets selling policy to decrease investmentinitial cost objective so that this normalized income in eachtwo iterations will be 00033819825 unit and 00022219703unit respectively In other words the extent of incomeresulting of selling the assets has become worse Also theresults indicate that return value in these two iterations hasimproved 00000001349 unit In this case it is said that riskobjective decreases by decrease of selling the assets in eachset of iterations and vice versa So considering Definition 6solutions of these two iterations are nondominated
Arrangement manner of Pareto optimal set relative toutopia and nadir points is shown in Figure 2 Pareto optimalset is established between two mentioned points so that itis more inclined toward utopia point and has the maximum
distance from nadir point Actually external points of solu-tion space which are close to utopia point and far from nadirpoint are introduced as Pareto optimal pointsThis somehowindicates that interobjectives tradeoffs are in a manner thatdistance between Pareto optimal space and utopia point willbeminimized and distance between Pareto optimal space andnadir point will be maximized
32 Making Changes in Value of Norm 119901 Because 119901 valuechanges are by investorrsquos discretion now we suppose thatinvestor considers value of norm 119901 = 2 andinfin We optimized(P7) by software Lingo 110 under condition 119901 = 2 andTable 9 (in The Appendix) shows all results in 99 iterationsAccording towhatwas said about119901 = 1 under this conditionPareto optimal space is between utopia and nadir points tooand tends to become closer to utopia point (see Figure 3)
Finally we optimize (P7) under condition 119901 = infin In thiscondition considering (P2) approach (P7) is aweightedmin-max model So (P7) can be rewritten in the form of (P8) asfollows
(P8) min 119910
st 119910 ge 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119910 ge 1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119910 ge 1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
119910 ge 0
(23)
Table 4 Utopia and nadir values related to each one of theobjectives
Function Utopia Nadirminus1198651
minus00000182639 minus00067770751198652
000034902100 00000849730minus1198653
029488520000 minus0212363600
Results of solving (P8) by software Lingo 110 in 99iterations are shown in Table 10 (in the Appendix) AlsoFigure 4 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving thismodel
Considering results obtained from values changes ofnorm 119901 it can be added that except nadir point and iterations119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 (from results of norm 119901 = infin) asset
Table 5 Results obtained for each objective considering norms of119901 = 1 2 andinfin and by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min (1198651) 0000371116 0001022573 0001388164
Max (1198652) 0000341307 0000297773 0000295503
Max (minus1198653) 0067135173 0172916129 0192074262
sell policy will be offered in other results obtained from threeexamined states
33 Results Evaluation The most important criterion forexamining obtained results is results conformity level withinvestorrsquos proposed goals As mentioned before considering
10 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 6 Information obtained of WGC method results with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Objective function 119865lowast
1119865lowast
2minus119865lowast
3
Objective name Risk Rate of return Income Cost119901 = 1
Mean 0000385422 0000275693 0141152048 mdashMin 0000028221 0000170333 0000806933 mdashMax 0006777075 0000349021 0294885220 mdash
119901 = 2
Mean 0000610893 0000284013 0161748217 mdashMin 0000028248 0000172807 0001455988 mdashMax 0002308977 0000348946 0281424452 mdash
119901 = infin
Mean 0000789979 0000281186 0179850336 minus0002756123lowast
Min 0000027132 0000172041 0000094981 minus0000255917lowastlowast
Max 0003797903 0000348978 0286319160 minus0007842553lowastlowastlowast
Notes lowastMean of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastMinimum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastlowastMaximum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)
Table 7 Summary of Table 6 information
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min Risk 0000028221 0000028248 0000027132Max Rate ofReturn 0000349021 0000348946 0000348978
Max Income 0294885220 0281424452 0286319160Min Cost mdash mdash 0000255917
Iran foreign exchange investment policy investor considersless concentration on US dollar For example the results ofTable 8 indicate that in each 11-fold set of iterations by having1199081constant and increasing 119908
2and decreasing 119908
3 we see
decrease of dollar and Japan 100 yen exchanges proportionand increase of Euro exchange proportion in each set ofiterations so that proportion of these exchanges is often zeroAlso there is no guarantee for investment on pound exchangeIt can be said about frank exchange that there is the firstincrease and then decrease trends in each set of iterations
Finally Tables 8 9 and 10 indicate that the average ofthe most exchange proportion in AP belongs to the Euroexchange followed by the Japan 100 yen frank dollar andpound exchanges respectively So considering all resultsobtained with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin investor obtainshisher first goal
Figures 5 6 and 7 show arrangement of Pareto optimal ofall results of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin norms between two utopia andnadir points in three different bidimensional graphs Figure 5shows tradeoffs between two first and third objectives As itis seen in this graph increase of investment risk objectiveresults in increase of income objective obtained from assetssell and vice versa decrease of obtained income value is alongwith decrease of investment risk value Also Tables 8 9 and10 show these changes in each 11-fold set of two 119865
1and minus119865
3
columns results
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 2 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 1
Figure 6 shows tradeoffs between two second and thirdobjectives The objective is increase of investment returnvalue and increase of income value obtained from assets sellResults correctness can be seen in Figure 6 too
Also tradeoffs between two first and second objectivescan be examined in Figure 7 Because the purpose is decreaseof first objective and increase of second objective so thisgraph indicates that we will expect increase (or decrease)of investment return value by increase (or decrease) ofinvestment risk value
Now suppose that investor makes no difference betweenobjectives and wants analyst to reexamine the results fordifferent norms of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin considering the equalityof objectives importance So by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
and1199081+1199082+1199083= 1 the objectives results will be according
to Table 5Complete specifications related toTable 5 information are
inserted in iteration 119895 = 100 of Tables 8 9 and 10 As itis clear in Table 5 third objective offers assets sell policy byassumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083 On the other hand under
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
8 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 2 Daily return variance-covariance matrix of five exchanges dollar pound frank Euro and 100 yen from 25 March 2002 to 19 March2012
Exchange USA dollar England pound Switzerland Frank Euro Japan 100 yenUSA dollar 000597841295 minus000000275182 000000333301 000000233057 000000336630England pound 000005097503 000001564795 000001375091 000000578037Switzerland frank 000677707505 000002699918 000001576213Euro 000002822086 000000969165Japan 100 yen 000003470445
Table 3 Present value price number existent proportion daily return mean and minimum aspiration level of return specifics of fiveexchanges USA dollar England pound Switzerland frank Euro and Japan 100 yen in Melli bank exchange AP in 19 March 2012
Exchange 119872119894 (existent) 119901
119894119873119894 (existent) 119909
119894 (existent) 119864(119877119894) 119864(119877
119894) times 119909119894 (existent)
USA dollar 17000000000 8904 1909254 0005589454 0000084973 0000000475England pound 662000000000 17934 36913126 0108065349 0000272112 0000029406Switzerland frank 167000000000 8837 18897816 0055324469 0000314821 0000017417Euro 3930000000000 14111 278506130 0815343090 0000349021 0000284572Japan 100 yen 49000000000 9150 5355191 0015677638 0000170238 0000002669
Total 4825000000000 341581517 1 0000334539
two first columns show numbers of iterations in 9 11-foldset of iterations Three second columns indicate changes ofobjectives importance weight In five third columns the valueof optimal proportion of each exchange in exchange APconsidering the changes of objectives weights is shown andfinally in last three columns optimal values of each objectiveare shown in each iteration
31 Evaluating Pareto Optimal Points Specifics In order toanalyze Pareto optimal points in this section consideringoptimal results of each objective we examine Pareto optimalpoint set for obtained results and indicate that all obtainedresults are considered as Pareto optimal point set First letsintroduce some vector variables 119883119895lowast is optimal vector ofmodel variables in iteration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) ofsolution (ie vector of optimal solution in iteration 119895th ofsolution) and 119865
119895lowast is vector of objectives optimal value initeration 119895th (for 119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Also 119882119895lowast isvector of objectives importance weight in iteration 119895th (for119895 = 1 2 119899) of solution Table 8 presents a set of obtainedoptimal points based on WGC method It also should bementioned that all optimal values of third column are ofvariable 119862minusAP and finally sell policy of AP existent assets isoffered for future investment So the purpose is to maximizethe positive values of minus119865
3column For better understanding
Figure 2 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7)along with utopia and nadir points
One of the most important specifics of Pareto optimalset is that all optimal points are nondominated Let usdefine being dominated to make clear the concept of beingnondominated
Definition 6 A solution 119909119894lowast is said to dominate the othersolution119883119895lowast if the following conditions are satisfied
(i) the solution 119909119894lowast is not worse than119883119895lowast in all objectivesor 119891119896(119909119894lowast) ⋫ 119891119896(119883119895lowast) for all 119896 = 1 2 119870
(ii) the solution 119909119894lowast is strictly better than 119883119895lowast in at leastone objective or 119891
119896(119909119894lowast) ⊲ 119891
119896(119883119895lowast) for at least one
119896 = 1 2 119870
We can say about the obtained results in Table 8 thatall solutions in each set of iterations is nondominated Forexample consider iterations 119895 = 7 and 119895 = 8 The results ofthese two iterations will be
1198827lowast= (09 006 004)
1198837lowast= (0 0 0008756436 0991243600 0)
1198657lowast= (00000287172 00003487215 00033819825)
1198828lowast= (09 007 003)
1198838lowast= (0 0 0004811658 0995188300 0)
1198658lowast= (00000283654 00003488564 00022219703)
(22)
Considering results of the two above iterations at risk09 importance weight and by increasing importance weightof return objective and decreasing investment importanceweight of cost objective by considering vectors1198837lowast and1198838lowastthere is any proportion for dollar pound and Japan 100 yen
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 9
exchanges in optimal AP and proportion of frank (Euro)exchange is decreasing (increasing) in each set of iterations
What is implied from values of vectors 1198657lowast and 1198658lowast is thatrisk objective has improved 00000003518 unit and the thirdobjective offers assets selling policy to decrease investmentinitial cost objective so that this normalized income in eachtwo iterations will be 00033819825 unit and 00022219703unit respectively In other words the extent of incomeresulting of selling the assets has become worse Also theresults indicate that return value in these two iterations hasimproved 00000001349 unit In this case it is said that riskobjective decreases by decrease of selling the assets in eachset of iterations and vice versa So considering Definition 6solutions of these two iterations are nondominated
Arrangement manner of Pareto optimal set relative toutopia and nadir points is shown in Figure 2 Pareto optimalset is established between two mentioned points so that itis more inclined toward utopia point and has the maximum
distance from nadir point Actually external points of solu-tion space which are close to utopia point and far from nadirpoint are introduced as Pareto optimal pointsThis somehowindicates that interobjectives tradeoffs are in a manner thatdistance between Pareto optimal space and utopia point willbeminimized and distance between Pareto optimal space andnadir point will be maximized
32 Making Changes in Value of Norm 119901 Because 119901 valuechanges are by investorrsquos discretion now we suppose thatinvestor considers value of norm 119901 = 2 andinfin We optimized(P7) by software Lingo 110 under condition 119901 = 2 andTable 9 (in The Appendix) shows all results in 99 iterationsAccording towhatwas said about119901 = 1 under this conditionPareto optimal space is between utopia and nadir points tooand tends to become closer to utopia point (see Figure 3)
Finally we optimize (P7) under condition 119901 = infin In thiscondition considering (P2) approach (P7) is aweightedmin-max model So (P7) can be rewritten in the form of (P8) asfollows
(P8) min 119910
st 119910 ge 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119910 ge 1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119910 ge 1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
119910 ge 0
(23)
Table 4 Utopia and nadir values related to each one of theobjectives
Function Utopia Nadirminus1198651
minus00000182639 minus00067770751198652
000034902100 00000849730minus1198653
029488520000 minus0212363600
Results of solving (P8) by software Lingo 110 in 99iterations are shown in Table 10 (in the Appendix) AlsoFigure 4 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving thismodel
Considering results obtained from values changes ofnorm 119901 it can be added that except nadir point and iterations119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 (from results of norm 119901 = infin) asset
Table 5 Results obtained for each objective considering norms of119901 = 1 2 andinfin and by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min (1198651) 0000371116 0001022573 0001388164
Max (1198652) 0000341307 0000297773 0000295503
Max (minus1198653) 0067135173 0172916129 0192074262
sell policy will be offered in other results obtained from threeexamined states
33 Results Evaluation The most important criterion forexamining obtained results is results conformity level withinvestorrsquos proposed goals As mentioned before considering
10 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 6 Information obtained of WGC method results with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Objective function 119865lowast
1119865lowast
2minus119865lowast
3
Objective name Risk Rate of return Income Cost119901 = 1
Mean 0000385422 0000275693 0141152048 mdashMin 0000028221 0000170333 0000806933 mdashMax 0006777075 0000349021 0294885220 mdash
119901 = 2
Mean 0000610893 0000284013 0161748217 mdashMin 0000028248 0000172807 0001455988 mdashMax 0002308977 0000348946 0281424452 mdash
119901 = infin
Mean 0000789979 0000281186 0179850336 minus0002756123lowast
Min 0000027132 0000172041 0000094981 minus0000255917lowastlowast
Max 0003797903 0000348978 0286319160 minus0007842553lowastlowastlowast
Notes lowastMean of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastMinimum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastlowastMaximum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)
Table 7 Summary of Table 6 information
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min Risk 0000028221 0000028248 0000027132Max Rate ofReturn 0000349021 0000348946 0000348978
Max Income 0294885220 0281424452 0286319160Min Cost mdash mdash 0000255917
Iran foreign exchange investment policy investor considersless concentration on US dollar For example the results ofTable 8 indicate that in each 11-fold set of iterations by having1199081constant and increasing 119908
2and decreasing 119908
3 we see
decrease of dollar and Japan 100 yen exchanges proportionand increase of Euro exchange proportion in each set ofiterations so that proportion of these exchanges is often zeroAlso there is no guarantee for investment on pound exchangeIt can be said about frank exchange that there is the firstincrease and then decrease trends in each set of iterations
Finally Tables 8 9 and 10 indicate that the average ofthe most exchange proportion in AP belongs to the Euroexchange followed by the Japan 100 yen frank dollar andpound exchanges respectively So considering all resultsobtained with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin investor obtainshisher first goal
Figures 5 6 and 7 show arrangement of Pareto optimal ofall results of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin norms between two utopia andnadir points in three different bidimensional graphs Figure 5shows tradeoffs between two first and third objectives As itis seen in this graph increase of investment risk objectiveresults in increase of income objective obtained from assetssell and vice versa decrease of obtained income value is alongwith decrease of investment risk value Also Tables 8 9 and10 show these changes in each 11-fold set of two 119865
1and minus119865
3
columns results
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 2 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 1
Figure 6 shows tradeoffs between two second and thirdobjectives The objective is increase of investment returnvalue and increase of income value obtained from assets sellResults correctness can be seen in Figure 6 too
Also tradeoffs between two first and second objectivescan be examined in Figure 7 Because the purpose is decreaseof first objective and increase of second objective so thisgraph indicates that we will expect increase (or decrease)of investment return value by increase (or decrease) ofinvestment risk value
Now suppose that investor makes no difference betweenobjectives and wants analyst to reexamine the results fordifferent norms of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin considering the equalityof objectives importance So by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
and1199081+1199082+1199083= 1 the objectives results will be according
to Table 5Complete specifications related toTable 5 information are
inserted in iteration 119895 = 100 of Tables 8 9 and 10 As itis clear in Table 5 third objective offers assets sell policy byassumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083 On the other hand under
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 9
exchanges in optimal AP and proportion of frank (Euro)exchange is decreasing (increasing) in each set of iterations
What is implied from values of vectors 1198657lowast and 1198658lowast is thatrisk objective has improved 00000003518 unit and the thirdobjective offers assets selling policy to decrease investmentinitial cost objective so that this normalized income in eachtwo iterations will be 00033819825 unit and 00022219703unit respectively In other words the extent of incomeresulting of selling the assets has become worse Also theresults indicate that return value in these two iterations hasimproved 00000001349 unit In this case it is said that riskobjective decreases by decrease of selling the assets in eachset of iterations and vice versa So considering Definition 6solutions of these two iterations are nondominated
Arrangement manner of Pareto optimal set relative toutopia and nadir points is shown in Figure 2 Pareto optimalset is established between two mentioned points so that itis more inclined toward utopia point and has the maximum
distance from nadir point Actually external points of solu-tion space which are close to utopia point and far from nadirpoint are introduced as Pareto optimal pointsThis somehowindicates that interobjectives tradeoffs are in a manner thatdistance between Pareto optimal space and utopia point willbeminimized and distance between Pareto optimal space andnadir point will be maximized
32 Making Changes in Value of Norm 119901 Because 119901 valuechanges are by investorrsquos discretion now we suppose thatinvestor considers value of norm 119901 = 2 andinfin We optimized(P7) by software Lingo 110 under condition 119901 = 2 andTable 9 (in The Appendix) shows all results in 99 iterationsAccording towhatwas said about119901 = 1 under this conditionPareto optimal space is between utopia and nadir points tooand tends to become closer to utopia point (see Figure 3)
Finally we optimize (P7) under condition 119901 = infin In thiscondition considering (P2) approach (P7) is aweightedmin-max model So (P7) can be rewritten in the form of (P8) asfollows
(P8) min 119910
st 119910 ge 1199081
((((((
(
minus00000182639 + (00059784131199092
1+ 50975119864 minus 05119909
2
2+ 0006777075119909
2
3+ 282209119864 minus 05119909
2
4
+347045119864 minus 051199092
5minus 550364119864 minus 06119909
11199092+ 666602119864 minus 06119909
11199093+ 466114119864 minus 06119909
11199094
+673259119864 minus 0611990911199095+ 312959119864 minus 05119909
21199093+ 275018119864 minus 05119909
21199094+ 115607119864
minus0511990921199095+ 539984119864 minus 05119909
31199094+ 315243119864 minus 05119909
31199095+ 193833119864 minus 05119909
41199095)
minus00000182639 + 0006777075
))))))
)
119910 ge 1199082(0000349021 minus (849735119864 minus 05119909
1+ 0000272112119909
2+ 0000314821119909
3+ 0000349021119909
4+ 0000170238119909
5)
0000349021 minus 00000849735)
119910 ge 1199083(02948852 + (0496487119119909
1+ 1199092+ 0492751199119909
3+ 0786829486119909
4+ 0510204082119909
5minus 0787636419)
02948852 + 02123636)
119898
sum
119894=1
119909119894= 1
119909119894ge 0 119894 = 1 2 119898
119910 ge 0
(23)
Table 4 Utopia and nadir values related to each one of theobjectives
Function Utopia Nadirminus1198651
minus00000182639 minus00067770751198652
000034902100 00000849730minus1198653
029488520000 minus0212363600
Results of solving (P8) by software Lingo 110 in 99iterations are shown in Table 10 (in the Appendix) AlsoFigure 4 shows Pareto optimal set obtained from solving thismodel
Considering results obtained from values changes ofnorm 119901 it can be added that except nadir point and iterations119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 (from results of norm 119901 = infin) asset
Table 5 Results obtained for each objective considering norms of119901 = 1 2 andinfin and by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min (1198651) 0000371116 0001022573 0001388164
Max (1198652) 0000341307 0000297773 0000295503
Max (minus1198653) 0067135173 0172916129 0192074262
sell policy will be offered in other results obtained from threeexamined states
33 Results Evaluation The most important criterion forexamining obtained results is results conformity level withinvestorrsquos proposed goals As mentioned before considering
10 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 6 Information obtained of WGC method results with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Objective function 119865lowast
1119865lowast
2minus119865lowast
3
Objective name Risk Rate of return Income Cost119901 = 1
Mean 0000385422 0000275693 0141152048 mdashMin 0000028221 0000170333 0000806933 mdashMax 0006777075 0000349021 0294885220 mdash
119901 = 2
Mean 0000610893 0000284013 0161748217 mdashMin 0000028248 0000172807 0001455988 mdashMax 0002308977 0000348946 0281424452 mdash
119901 = infin
Mean 0000789979 0000281186 0179850336 minus0002756123lowast
Min 0000027132 0000172041 0000094981 minus0000255917lowastlowast
Max 0003797903 0000348978 0286319160 minus0007842553lowastlowastlowast
Notes lowastMean of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastMinimum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastlowastMaximum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)
Table 7 Summary of Table 6 information
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min Risk 0000028221 0000028248 0000027132Max Rate ofReturn 0000349021 0000348946 0000348978
Max Income 0294885220 0281424452 0286319160Min Cost mdash mdash 0000255917
Iran foreign exchange investment policy investor considersless concentration on US dollar For example the results ofTable 8 indicate that in each 11-fold set of iterations by having1199081constant and increasing 119908
2and decreasing 119908
3 we see
decrease of dollar and Japan 100 yen exchanges proportionand increase of Euro exchange proportion in each set ofiterations so that proportion of these exchanges is often zeroAlso there is no guarantee for investment on pound exchangeIt can be said about frank exchange that there is the firstincrease and then decrease trends in each set of iterations
Finally Tables 8 9 and 10 indicate that the average ofthe most exchange proportion in AP belongs to the Euroexchange followed by the Japan 100 yen frank dollar andpound exchanges respectively So considering all resultsobtained with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin investor obtainshisher first goal
Figures 5 6 and 7 show arrangement of Pareto optimal ofall results of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin norms between two utopia andnadir points in three different bidimensional graphs Figure 5shows tradeoffs between two first and third objectives As itis seen in this graph increase of investment risk objectiveresults in increase of income objective obtained from assetssell and vice versa decrease of obtained income value is alongwith decrease of investment risk value Also Tables 8 9 and10 show these changes in each 11-fold set of two 119865
1and minus119865
3
columns results
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 2 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 1
Figure 6 shows tradeoffs between two second and thirdobjectives The objective is increase of investment returnvalue and increase of income value obtained from assets sellResults correctness can be seen in Figure 6 too
Also tradeoffs between two first and second objectivescan be examined in Figure 7 Because the purpose is decreaseof first objective and increase of second objective so thisgraph indicates that we will expect increase (or decrease)of investment return value by increase (or decrease) ofinvestment risk value
Now suppose that investor makes no difference betweenobjectives and wants analyst to reexamine the results fordifferent norms of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin considering the equalityof objectives importance So by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
and1199081+1199082+1199083= 1 the objectives results will be according
to Table 5Complete specifications related toTable 5 information are
inserted in iteration 119895 = 100 of Tables 8 9 and 10 As itis clear in Table 5 third objective offers assets sell policy byassumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083 On the other hand under
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
10 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table 6 Information obtained of WGC method results with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Objective function 119865lowast
1119865lowast
2minus119865lowast
3
Objective name Risk Rate of return Income Cost119901 = 1
Mean 0000385422 0000275693 0141152048 mdashMin 0000028221 0000170333 0000806933 mdashMax 0006777075 0000349021 0294885220 mdash
119901 = 2
Mean 0000610893 0000284013 0161748217 mdashMin 0000028248 0000172807 0001455988 mdashMax 0002308977 0000348946 0281424452 mdash
119901 = infin
Mean 0000789979 0000281186 0179850336 minus0002756123lowast
Min 0000027132 0000172041 0000094981 minus0000255917lowastlowast
Max 0003797903 0000348978 0286319160 minus0007842553lowastlowastlowast
Notes lowastMean of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastMinimum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)lowastlowastlowastMaximum of cost value obtained (disregard its negative mark)
Table 7 Summary of Table 6 information
Objective 119901 = 1 119901 = 2 119901 = infin
Min Risk 0000028221 0000028248 0000027132Max Rate ofReturn 0000349021 0000348946 0000348978
Max Income 0294885220 0281424452 0286319160Min Cost mdash mdash 0000255917
Iran foreign exchange investment policy investor considersless concentration on US dollar For example the results ofTable 8 indicate that in each 11-fold set of iterations by having1199081constant and increasing 119908
2and decreasing 119908
3 we see
decrease of dollar and Japan 100 yen exchanges proportionand increase of Euro exchange proportion in each set ofiterations so that proportion of these exchanges is often zeroAlso there is no guarantee for investment on pound exchangeIt can be said about frank exchange that there is the firstincrease and then decrease trends in each set of iterations
Finally Tables 8 9 and 10 indicate that the average ofthe most exchange proportion in AP belongs to the Euroexchange followed by the Japan 100 yen frank dollar andpound exchanges respectively So considering all resultsobtained with assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin investor obtainshisher first goal
Figures 5 6 and 7 show arrangement of Pareto optimal ofall results of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin norms between two utopia andnadir points in three different bidimensional graphs Figure 5shows tradeoffs between two first and third objectives As itis seen in this graph increase of investment risk objectiveresults in increase of income objective obtained from assetssell and vice versa decrease of obtained income value is alongwith decrease of investment risk value Also Tables 8 9 and10 show these changes in each 11-fold set of two 119865
1and minus119865
3
columns results
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 2 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 1
Figure 6 shows tradeoffs between two second and thirdobjectives The objective is increase of investment returnvalue and increase of income value obtained from assets sellResults correctness can be seen in Figure 6 too
Also tradeoffs between two first and second objectivescan be examined in Figure 7 Because the purpose is decreaseof first objective and increase of second objective so thisgraph indicates that we will expect increase (or decrease)of investment return value by increase (or decrease) ofinvestment risk value
Now suppose that investor makes no difference betweenobjectives and wants analyst to reexamine the results fordifferent norms of 119901 = 1 2 andinfin considering the equalityof objectives importance So by assumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083
and1199081+1199082+1199083= 1 the objectives results will be according
to Table 5Complete specifications related toTable 5 information are
inserted in iteration 119895 = 100 of Tables 8 9 and 10 As itis clear in Table 5 third objective offers assets sell policy byassumption 119908
1= 1199082= 1199083 On the other hand under
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 11
02
4
00204
0
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Nadir point
Pareto optimal set
minus04minus02
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2
minusF3
Figure 3 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = 2
0 1 2 3 40
050
2
4
6
8
Utopiapoint
Pareto optimal set
Nadir point
minus05
times10minus3
times10minus4
F1
F2minusF3
Figure 4 Pareto optimal set obtained from solving (P7) withassumption 119901 = infin
this objectiveminimumrisk value andmaximum investmentreturn value are related to solution obtained in norm 119901 =
1 and maximum income value obtained from assets sell isrelated to solution obtained in norm 119901 = infin These valueshave been bolded in Table 5
In here we consider assessment objectives on the basisof mean minimum and maximum value indices in order toassess results of WGC method in three different approacheswith assumption 119901 = 1 2 andinfin
Third objective function optimal values in Table 6 are ofboth income and cost kind so that the objective is to increaseincome and to decrease cost Generally results of Table 6 canpresent different options of case selection to investor for finaldecision making
Table 7 which summarizes important information ofTable 6 indicates that minimum risk value of exchange APinvestment is in 119901 = infin and iteration 119895 = 11 Also maximumrate of expected return of investment is in norm 119901 = 1 andin one of two of the last iteration of each set of solution Andmaximum value of income obtained from assets sell can beexpected in norm 119901 = 1 and in iterations 119895 = 93 or 119895 = 94And finally minimum cost value of new assets buy for AP canbe considered in norm 119901 = infin and in iteration = 55 Thesevalues have been bolded in Table 7
Considering Table 6 and mean values of objectivesresults we can have another assessment so that in general if
0 2 4 6 8
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus3
F1
minusF3
Figure 5 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andthird objectives
0 1 2 3 4
0
02
04 Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
minus04
minus02
times10minus4
F2
minusF3
Figure 6 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two secondand third objectives
investor gives priority to risk objective heshe will be offeredto use obtained results in norm 119901 = 1 If objective of returnis given priority using norm 119901 = 2 is offered and if the firstpriority is given to investment cost objective (by adopting twosynchronic policies of buying and selling assets) the results ofnorm 119901 = infin will be offered
Considering the results shown in Figures 2 3 and 4 it canbe seen that that increase of p-norm increases effectivenessdegree of the WGC model for finding more number ofsolutions in Pareto frontier of the triobjective problem Sothat increasing p-norm we can better track down the optimalsolutions in Pareto frontier and diversity of the obtainedresults can help investor to make a better decision
34 Risk Acceptance Levels and Computing VaR of InvestmentConsidering obtained results we now suppose that investorselects risk as hisher main objective So in this case investordecides which level of obtained values will be chosen for finalselection By considering importance weights of objectiveswe say the following
(i) In interval 01 le 1199081le 03 risk acceptance level is low
and investor in case of selecting is not a risky person
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
12 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table8Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=1
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
00001
00999
0006871283
00004708435
00988420300
00000345306
00001703329
02776087571
209
001
009
0004696536
0000
7527940
00987775500
00000346430
00001709260
02776281561
309
002
008
0002499822
00010375920
00987124300
00000349232
00001715250
02776476956
409
003
007
0000303108
00013223910
00986473000
00000353709
00001721241
02776672811
509
004
006
00
0015664
130
0075280620
0909055300
00000323410
00001859617
02568811641
609
005
005
00
0012701230
0987298800
000000292790
00003485866
000
45420655
709
006
004
00
0008756436
099124360
00
000
00287172
000
03487215
00033819825
809
007
003
00
00048116
580995188300
000000283654
00003488564
00022219703
909
008
002
00
000
0866
845
0999133200
0000
00282239
000
03489914
00010618182
1009
009
001
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
1109
00999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
212
08
00001
01999
0008974214
00007087938
00983937800
00000347003
00001704976
02776791658
1308
002
018
00040
56237
00013463850
00982479900
00000352702
00001718388
02777229662
1408
004
016
00
0019869360
00980130600
00000366285
0000173110
802777791354
1508
006
014
00
0026263540
00973736500
00000383869
00001740353
02778906914
1608
008
012
00
0032657720
00967342300
000
0040
6986
000
01749598
02780022985
1708
01
01
00
0028351590
097164840
00
00000335784
00003480514
0009144
5280
1808
012
008
00
0019475800
0980524200
000000307341
00003483549
00065343430
1908
014
006
00
00106
00010
0989400000
000000289536
00003486585
00039241580
2008
016
004
00
0001724232
0998275800
0000
00282368
000
03489620
00013139671
2108
018
002
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
2208
01999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
323
07
00001
02999
0011678020
00010147340
00978174600
00000351099
00001707094
027776964
5124
07
003
027
0003233185
00021095760
00975671100
00000367854
00001730124
0277844
8457
2507
006
024
00
0032066230
00967933800
000
0040
4614
000
01748742
02779919702
86
02
064
016
00
0024873570
097512640
00
00000323371
00003481703
00081217336
8702
072
008
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
8802
07999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
989
01
000
0108999
0141458800
0015699660
00
0701544
600
000
030804
11000
01808756
02821127656
9001
009
081
00
0387325700
00612674300
00010372128
000
02262387
02841922874
9101
018
072
00
0617516200
00382483800
00025967994
000
02595203
02882097752
9201
027
063
00
0847706
600
0015229340
0000
48749247
000
02928020
02922272613
9301
036
054
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9401
045
045
00
10
0000
67770750
000
03148210
02948852202
9501
054
036
00
0694796100
0305203900
000032856555
000
03252590
02051313800
9601
063
027
00
0375267800
0624732200
0000
09780617
000
03361868
011116
5044
997
01
072
018
00
0055739370
0944260600
000000
490602
0000347114
700171986952
9801
081
009
00
01
0000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
9901
08999
000
010
00
10
000
00282209
000
03490210
000
08069331
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 13
Table9Re
sults
ofWGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=2
Set
j1199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0018229950
00028518200
00953251800
000
0040
0116
000
01728069
02781801472
209
001
009
00
0119
077500
0086929170
0793993300
000
012306
44000
02029960
02554637815
309
002
008
00
014294560
00208825900
064
8228500
000
016144
93000
02282400
0222160
6012
409
003
007
00
0154138700
0317146
600
0528714800
000
01820135
000
02492243
019239164
465
09
004
006
00
0158642900
0415838300
0425518800
000
01908465
000
02675199
01651696755
609
005
005
00
0158385300
0507443800
033417100
0000
019044
67000
02838602
01398247201
709
006
004
00
015397000
0059399940
0025203060
0000
01818879
000
02986964
0115804
2336
809
007
003
00
0145161700
0677493900
0177344
400
000
01653018
000
03123503
00925538035
909
008
002
00
0130576800
0760494300
0108928900
000
01397009
000
03250806
00693392358
1009
009
001
00
0105515300
0848209300
004
6275360
000
01015781
000
03371391
004
46376634
1109
00999
000
010
00007650378
099234960
00
000
00285973
000
03487593
00030567605
212
08
000
0101999
002991746
00
0039864350
00930218200
000
00475182
000
01734508
02785384568
1308
002
018
00
0156186200
0083826670
0759987100
000
01912475
000
02078066
02569696656
1408
004
016
00
018571540
00200518500
0613766100
000
02559406
000
02329386
02252050954
1508
006
014
00
019959200
00300829100
0496578900
000
029046
45000
02534151
01968689455
1608
008
012
00
0205190500
0398024700
0396784800
000
03053087
000
02710651
01709097596
1708
01
01
00
0204883800
048582340
00309292800
000
03047496
000
02867177
01466170559
1808
012
008
00
0199402200
05964
20100
023117
7700
000
02906059
000
03008708
0123396
4152
1908
014
006
00
0188426800
0651025100
0160548200
000
02630769
000
03138735
01003607957
2008
016
004
00
0170199200
0733624200
0096176590
000
02204524
000
03260054
00774637183
2108
018
002
00
013878740
0082355060
00037661990
000
01566672
000
03375411
00520395650
2208
01999
000
010
00005895560
0994104
400
0000
002844
12000
03488194
00025407208
323
07
000
0102999
0039009630
00049063780
0091192660
0000
00559352
000
01740057
02788237303
2407
003
027
00
0186056900
0081543590
0732399500
000
02596792
000
02117
173
02581225432
2507
006
024
00
0220191800
01940
0960
0058579860
0000
03501300
000
02367596
02276073350
86
02
064
016
00
0398776800
0577263500
0023959700
000110
01341
000
03310992
01247063931
8702
072
008
00
0327132700
0672867300
0000
07499171
000
03378331
00970095572
8802
07999
000
010
00002425452
0997574500
0000
00282547
000
03489380
00015202436
989
01
000
0108999
01160
46900
0013753340
00
07464
19800
000
02319630
000
01802283
02814244516
9001
009
081
00
046560260
00062508280
0471889200
00014860814
000
02487317
02682670259
9101
018
072
00
0536634300
013633960
00327026100
00019662209
000
02722014
02490831559
9201
027
063
00
0568920100
019828140
00232798500
00022076880
000
02879435
02325119
608
9301
036
054
00
058185400
00255105800
0163040
100
00023089775
000
02999728
02170186730
9401
045
045
00
058137840
003106
87800
0107933800
00023061672
000
03098411
02016349282
9501
054
036
00
0569100
400
036828160
00062618070
00022117
786
000
03183627
01854886977
9601
063
027
00
0543837700
0431747800
00244
14500
00020229669
000
03260569
01674914633
9701
072
018
00
0496141900
0503858100
000016888863
000
03320529
01467114
932
9801
081
009
00
0398874200
0601125800
000011013820
000
03353795
01181071746
9901
08999
000
010
00002207111
0997792900
0000
00282484
000
03489455
00014559879
Remarkallresultsof
columnminus119865lowast 3areincom
e
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
14 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
Table10R
esultsof
WGCmetho
dwith
assumption119901=infin
Set
1198951199081
1199082
1199083
119909lowast 1
119909lowast 2
119909lowast 3
119909lowast 4
119909lowast 5
119865lowast 1
119865lowast 2
minus119865lowast 3
11
09
000
0100999
0028899780
00029577030
00941589200
000
00427289
000
017204
0702783438020
209
001
009
00
0070433610
0062785360
0866781000
00000630236
000019164
6502612935966
309
002
008
00
0101006200
0174237800
0724755900
000
00939332
000
02159925
0230996
6359
409
003
007
00
01164
28100
0278216500
060535540
0000
011400
42000
02368119
02025025916
509
004
006
00
012375140
00377299100
0498949500
000
01245607
000
02555850
017522164
006
09
005
005
00
012511340
00473218300
040
1668300
000
012646
84000
02729307
01487117
233
709
006
004
00
012118
9100
0567500
900
031131000
0000
01203131
000
02892194
01225622706
809
007
003
00
0111
7466
000661831700
02264
21700
000
0106
4638
000
03047189
00963031761
909
008
002
00
0095342160
0758644900
014601300
0000
00850784
000
03196557
00692358501
1009
009
001
00
006
6968140
0863314500
0069717330
000
00560311
000
03342664
00397864172
1109
00999
000
010
004
057525
00959424800
0000
00271318
000
03459004
ndash0007842553
212
08
00001
01999
00547117
300
0058635980
00886652300
000007046
6400001740508
02792061779
1308
002
018
00
0113395300
006
095540
00825649300
000
01152060
000
01975308
026254960
0114
08
004
016
00
0152208900
0166894800
0680896300
000
01807255
000
02220828
02339214799
1508
006
014
00
017237540
00264806700
0562817900
000
02227532
000
02425035
02071885246
1608
008
012
00
0181971200
0357986500
046
0042300
000
0244
7231
000
02605498
01815800991
1708
01
01
00
018364260
0044
864860
00367708800
000
02487024
000
027700
0301565298298
53
05
04
01
00
0272137800
064
1502500
0086359700
000
05250173
000
03242742
01047260381
5405
045
005
00
020730340
0075987400
00032822650
000
03167791
000
03360631
00708499014
5505
04999
000
010
000
4986061
00995013900
0000
00280779
000
03486375
ndash0000255917
656
04
000
0105999
0134142200
00148261500
00717596300
000
02785519
000
01802365
02818599514
5704
006
054
00
0270078900
005428144
0067563960
0000
05175179
000
02189914
02671303981
5804
012
048
00
0343366
600
013948060
00517152800
000
08184342
000
0244
8197
02448411970
87
02
072
008
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
8802
07999
000
010
0001259991
00998740
000
0000
00281845
000
03489241
000
05383473
989
01
000
0108999
0267611800
00298861900
00433526300
00010453894
000
01906306
02863191600
9001
009
081
00
055621340
0004
2093510
040
1693100
00021109316
000
02581826
02754957253
9101
018
072
00
066
834960
00092874300
0238776100
00030382942
000
02834743
02634055738
9201
027
063
00
0720372500
0133459500
0146167900
000352700
49000
02982519
02530866771
9301
036
054
00
0743590300
0171686800
0084722810
000375746
72000
030844
3202429172472
9401
045
045
00
074751660
00211943200
004
0540250
00037979028
000
03162080
02318497581
9501
054
036
00
07344
77100
0258321800
0007201089
00036682709
000
03226144
02187927134
9601
063
027
00
0657337100
0342662900
000029437968
000
03265401
01941155015
9701
072
018
00
0528083700
0471916300
000019096811
000
03309605
0156104
8830
9801
081
009
00
033215000
0066785000
00
000
07722369
000
03376615
00984850362
9901
08999
000
010
000
0561126
00999438900
0000
00282047
000
03489779
000
06872967
Remarknegativ
evalueso
fcolum
nminus119865lowast 3arec
ostsandpo
sitivev
aluesa
reincomes
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
Chinese Journal of Mathematics 15
0 2 4 6 80
1
2
3
4Utopia point
Nadir point
Pareto optimalset
times10minus3
times10minus4
F2
F1
Figure 7 Pareto optimal set arrangement considering two first andsecond objectives
(ii) In interval 04 le 1199081le 06 risk acceptance level
is mean and investor in case of selecting is a rathercautious person
(iii) In interval 07 le 1199081le 09 risk acceptance level is high
and investor in case of selecting is a risky person
Now let us suppose that considering Table 10 resultsinvestor selects iteration 119895 = 94 as hisher optimal solutionBecause of thinking important of risk objective heshe asksanalyst about VaR of exchange AP for one-year future termby 250 working days For this vectors 11988394lowast and 11986594lowast are asfollows
11988394lowast
= (0 0 0747516600 0211943200 0040540250)
11986594lowast
= (00037979028 00003162080 02318497581)
(24)
By considering Table 3 and (17) and (18) and vector 11986594lowastwe have VaRAP(119879 = 250 days) = 377377351262862 Rials sothat maximum loss during future 250 days and in confidencelevel of 95 will not exceed 377377351262862 Rials
4 Conclusions
In the beginning of this paper by defining risk we indicatedspecifics of an AP As mentioned before an AP is a portfoliothat investor considering market conditions and examiningexperiences and making balance in assets two by two over-lapping selects assets for investment It is also said that APoptimization would usually be repeated for a finance termwith limited time horizon Then we proposed a triobjectivemodel for synchronic optimization of investment risk andreturn and initial cost on the basis of Markowitz mean-variance model and indicated our motivations for offeringthis model Then results obtained from these interobjectivestradeoffs were analyzed for an AP including five majorexchanges present in Iran Melli bank investment portfolioThe WGC method (with assumption 119901 = 1 2 and infin) wasused to present results of interobjectives tradeoffs
Then trade-off manner of obtained results under norms119901 = 1 2 and infin were examined on the basis of three bidi-mensional graphs It was also seen that third objective offeredincome obtained from asset sell policy to investor on thebasis of objectives importance weight equality assumptionAnd finally the best value of each objective was identified andexamined on the basis of results of all three different normsof 119901
Then risk acceptance different levels were indicated forobtained results and for one of the levels considering theconcept of the VaR method we computed VaR of investmentduring a limited time horizon 250 days After examiningobtained results it was seen that except nadir point anditerations 119895 = 11 22 33 44 and 55 of Table 10 which offernew asset buying policy all obtained results offered AP assetselling policy in three examined norms Also it is importantabout the case study results that in three examined normsin comparison with other exchanges US dollar exchangeproportion was rather the fewest exchange proportion inIran Melli bank exchange AP in all norms 119901 = 1 2 andinfin So these results could be considered as a proper trendfor decision making of Iran exchange investment policybased on more concentration on other exchanges and lessconcentration on exchanges like US dollar
In this paper a proposal model was introduced consid-ering investment initial cost objective (by two asset sellingor buying policy) Of our proposal model advantages wereto adopt synchronic policy of AP assets selling or buyingand consistency of the proposal model with investor goalsAlso because there were a lot of numbers of existent assets inunderstudy AP proposal model adopted asset selling policyin all iterations but some iteration Adopting asset selling orbuying policy by the model would be sensitive to the numberof AP existent assets
Appendix
See Tables 8 9 and 10
Conflict of Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper
References
[1] H M Markowitz ldquoPortfolio selectionrdquo The Journal of Financevol 7 no 1 pp 77ndash91 1952
[2] S Benati and R Rizzi ldquoA mixed integer linear programmingformulation of the optimal meanvalue-at-risk portfolio prob-lemrdquo European Journal of Operational Research vol 176 no 1pp 423ndash434 2007
[3] A Prekopa Stochastic Programming Kluwer Academic Lon-don UK 1995
[4] R E Steuer Y Qi and M Hirschberger ldquoMultiple objectives inportfolio selectionrdquo Journal of Financial DecisionMaking vol 1no 1 pp 5ndash20 2005
[5] A D Roy ldquoSafety first and the holding of assetsrdquo Econometricavol 20 no 3 pp 431ndash449 1952
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
16 Chinese Journal of Mathematics
[6] W Sharpe ldquoCapital asset prices a theory of market equilibriumunder conditions of riskrdquo The Journal of Finance vol 19 no 3pp 425ndash442 1964
[7] M Vafaei Jahan and M-R Akbarzadeh-T ldquoExternal optimiza-tion vs learning automata strategies for spin selection inportfolio selection problemsrdquo Applied Soft Computing vol 12no 10 pp 3276ndash3284 2012
[8] M Amiri M Ekhtiari and M Yazdani ldquoNadir compromiseprogramming a model for optimization of multi-objectiveportfolio problemrdquoExpert SystemswithApplications vol 38 no6 pp 7222ndash7226 2011
[9] W Zhang Y Zhang X Yang and W Xu ldquoA class of on-lineportfolio selection algorithms based on linear learningrdquoAppliedMathematics and Computation vol 218 no 24 pp 11832ndash118412012
[10] X Li B Shou and Z Qin ldquoAn expected regret minimizationportfolio selection modelrdquo European Journal of OperationalResearch vol 218 no 2 pp 484ndash492 2012
[11] K Tolikas A Koulakiotis and R A Brown ldquoExtreme riskand value-at-risk in the German stock marketrdquo The EuropeanJournal of Finance vol 13 no 4 pp 373ndash395 2007
[12] S S Hildreth The Dictionary of Investment Terms DearbonFinancial Chicago Ill USA 1989
[13] S Arnone A Loraschi and A Tettamanzi ldquoA genetic approachto portfolio selectionrdquo Neural Network World vol 3 no 6 pp597ndash604 1993
[14] GVedarajan L C Chan andD EGoldberg ldquoInvestment port-folio optimization using genetic algorithmsrdquo in Late BreakingPapers at the Genetic Programming Conference J R Koza Edpp 255ndash263 Stanford University Stanford Calif USA 1997
[15] W Briec K Kerstens andO Jokung ldquoMean-variance-skewnessportfolio performance gauging a general shortage function anddual approachrdquoManagement Science vol 53 no 1 pp 135ndash1492007
[16] H P Sharma D Ghosh and D K Sharma ldquoCredit unionportfoliomanagement an application of goal interval program-mingrdquo Academy of Banking Studies Journal vol 6 no 1-2 pp39ndash60 2007
[17] V Chankong and Y Y HaimesMultiobjectiva Decision MakingTheory andMethodology Elsevier Science New York NY USA1983
[18] A Messac and A Ismail-Yahaya ldquoRequired relationshipbetween objective function and pareto frontier orders practicalimplicationsrdquo The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro-nautics Journal vol 39 no 11 pp 2168ndash2174 2001
[19] K Miettinen Nonlinear Multi-Objective Optimization KluwerAcademic Boston Mass USA 1999
[20] P L Yu ldquoA class of solutions for group decision problemsrdquoManagement Science vol 19 no 8 pp 936ndash946 1973
[21] M Zeleny Multiple Criteria Decision Making Mc Graw HillNew York NY USA 1982
[22] Y L Chen ldquoWeighted-norm approach for multiobjective VArplanningrdquo IEE Proceedings vol 145 no 4 pp 369ndash374 1998
[23] K DowdD Blake andA Cairns ldquoLong-term value at riskrdquoTheJournal of Risk Finance vol 5 no 2 pp 52ndash57 2004
[24] KDowdMeasuringMarket Risk JohnWileyampSonsNewYorkNY USA 2nd edition 2005
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of
Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Differential EquationsInternational Journal of
Volume 2014
Applied MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Probability and StatisticsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Mathematical PhysicsAdvances in
Complex AnalysisJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
OptimizationJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
CombinatoricsHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Operations ResearchAdvances in
Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Function Spaces
Abstract and Applied AnalysisHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Algebra
Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Decision SciencesAdvances in
Discrete MathematicsJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom
Volume 2014 Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014
Stochastic AnalysisInternational Journal of