Publicação
Portfolio insurance strategies: friend or foe?
| Resumo: | This work focus on a specific protective investment strategy developed in the foundations of options theory. Although individual investor's risk profile has evolved to accommodate remuneration on risks taken, still averse invertors tend to appreciate the rallies of risk markets when relatively protected from downward movements. One of the strategies addressing this conundrum was developed in the 1980s and evolved from inclusion of options. In fact portfolio insurance strategies are important financial solutions sold to institutional and individual investors, that protect against downside risk while maintaining some upside valuation potential. The way these strategies are engineered has been criticized, and some analysts point them as one of the causes for increasing market volatility in depressed markets. In spite of the negative opinion, and the difficulties to explain their solid market share, investors keep on buying portfolio insurance. As these strategies are reactive to risky assets price movements we review the impact of portfolio insurance strategies on stability of financial markets. In particular, we go from the crisis of October 1987 to some of the current resurgence od protective views on recent equity market rallies. The objective of this thesis is three-fold: have a transversal approach to portfolio insurance strategies using currrent tools and assess the fitting of these financial solutions to individual investors; contribute to the literature on portfolio insurance, specially, on the discussion on the values derived from protective strategies; finally, taking account new business platforms, discuss how new digital tools for investments may enhance capacibilities for profiling individual risks and set strategies that are proper per each investor. The work points to some features that may define the characteristics of individual investors' risk profile with the product definition for portfolio strategies. In particular we set the common approach for different utility functions and evaluate how these strategies respond to investors' risk and return requirements. We find no relevant results under Expected Utility Theory (EUT) to explain why individuals invest in portfolio insurance. In this thesis we support the use of behavioural finance to explain the popularity of portfolio insurance investments. In order to clarify their popularity, we compare investors' decision using two distinct frameworks: the EUT and behavioural approach based on the prospect and cumulative prospect theory. We rely on Monte Carlo simulation techniques to compare portfolio insurance investment strategies against uninsured basic benchmark strategies. Our comparative analysis us to conclude that cumulative prospect theory may be a viable framework to explain the popularity of (at least some) portfolio insurance investments. The results point the best choices to be the naive portfolio insurance strategies instead of the complex products. Ultimately we take a view on the digital marketplace for portfolio management in particularwhen using robo-advisors. There is a growing number of automatic platforms that define investors risk profile using a set of questions on psychological and behaviour features. Based on these characteristics, robo-advisors propose asset allocation into portfolios that tend to address investors aspirations within their risk profile. However, we found that even using some questions on downside risks - which tend to be responded by portfolio insurance strategies - there is a biased approach on the sample of robo-advisors in our study that may hide future mismatching from individual investors aspirations and deliverables from these platforms. A cross sectional analysis for the same risk type investor end up with different risk reward patterns from the sample of robo-advisors. There is, therefore, a potential long term mismatch between risks and risk tolerance levels that investors think they are bearing. This opens the space to review how the regulation is actually addressing mis-selling and effective risk profiling on individuals. In this case we point out the need for guidelines on policy issues regarding robo-advisor. |
|---|---|
| Autores principais: | Silva, Paulo José Martins Jorge da |
| Assunto: | Portfolio management Portfolio insurance Expected utility Behavioural finance Robo-advisor Gestão de portfolio "Portfolio insurance" Teoria da utilidade esperada Finanças comportamentais |
| Ano: | 2018 |
| País: | Portugal |
| Tipo de documento: | tese de doutoramento |
| Tipo de acesso: | acesso aberto |
| Instituição associada: | Universidade de Lisboa |
| Idioma: | inglês |
| Origem: | Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
| Resumo: | This work focus on a specific protective investment strategy developed in the foundations of options theory. Although individual investor's risk profile has evolved to accommodate remuneration on risks taken, still averse invertors tend to appreciate the rallies of risk markets when relatively protected from downward movements. One of the strategies addressing this conundrum was developed in the 1980s and evolved from inclusion of options. In fact portfolio insurance strategies are important financial solutions sold to institutional and individual investors, that protect against downside risk while maintaining some upside valuation potential. The way these strategies are engineered has been criticized, and some analysts point them as one of the causes for increasing market volatility in depressed markets. In spite of the negative opinion, and the difficulties to explain their solid market share, investors keep on buying portfolio insurance. As these strategies are reactive to risky assets price movements we review the impact of portfolio insurance strategies on stability of financial markets. In particular, we go from the crisis of October 1987 to some of the current resurgence od protective views on recent equity market rallies. The objective of this thesis is three-fold: have a transversal approach to portfolio insurance strategies using currrent tools and assess the fitting of these financial solutions to individual investors; contribute to the literature on portfolio insurance, specially, on the discussion on the values derived from protective strategies; finally, taking account new business platforms, discuss how new digital tools for investments may enhance capacibilities for profiling individual risks and set strategies that are proper per each investor. The work points to some features that may define the characteristics of individual investors' risk profile with the product definition for portfolio strategies. In particular we set the common approach for different utility functions and evaluate how these strategies respond to investors' risk and return requirements. We find no relevant results under Expected Utility Theory (EUT) to explain why individuals invest in portfolio insurance. In this thesis we support the use of behavioural finance to explain the popularity of portfolio insurance investments. In order to clarify their popularity, we compare investors' decision using two distinct frameworks: the EUT and behavioural approach based on the prospect and cumulative prospect theory. We rely on Monte Carlo simulation techniques to compare portfolio insurance investment strategies against uninsured basic benchmark strategies. Our comparative analysis us to conclude that cumulative prospect theory may be a viable framework to explain the popularity of (at least some) portfolio insurance investments. The results point the best choices to be the naive portfolio insurance strategies instead of the complex products. Ultimately we take a view on the digital marketplace for portfolio management in particularwhen using robo-advisors. There is a growing number of automatic platforms that define investors risk profile using a set of questions on psychological and behaviour features. Based on these characteristics, robo-advisors propose asset allocation into portfolios that tend to address investors aspirations within their risk profile. However, we found that even using some questions on downside risks - which tend to be responded by portfolio insurance strategies - there is a biased approach on the sample of robo-advisors in our study that may hide future mismatching from individual investors aspirations and deliverables from these platforms. A cross sectional analysis for the same risk type investor end up with different risk reward patterns from the sample of robo-advisors. There is, therefore, a potential long term mismatch between risks and risk tolerance levels that investors think they are bearing. This opens the space to review how the regulation is actually addressing mis-selling and effective risk profiling on individuals. In this case we point out the need for guidelines on policy issues regarding robo-advisor. |
|---|