• Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.39-55
• /
• 2019

Recently banks and large financial institutions have introduced lots of Robo-Advisor products. Robo-Advisor is a Robot to produce the optimal asset allocation portfolio for investors by using the financial engineering algorithms without any human intervention. Since the first introduction in Wall Street in 2008, the market size has grown to 60 billion dollars and is expected to expand to 2,000 billion dollars by 2020. Since Robo-Advisor algorithms suggest asset allocation output to investors, mathematical or statistical asset allocation strategies are applied. Mean variance optimization model developed by Markowitz is the typical asset allocation model. The model is a simple but quite intuitive portfolio strategy. For example, assets are allocated in order to minimize the risk on the portfolio while maximizing the expected return on the portfolio using optimization techniques. Despite its theoretical background, both academics and practitioners find that the standard mean variance optimization portfolio is very sensitive to the expected returns calculated by past price data. Corner solutions are often found to be allocated only to a few assets. The Black-Litterman Optimization model overcomes these problems by choosing a neutral Capital Asset Pricing Model equilibrium point. Implied equilibrium returns of each asset are derived from equilibrium market portfolio through reverse optimization. The Black-Litterman model uses a Bayesian approach to combine the subjective views on the price forecast of one or more assets with implied equilibrium returns, resulting a new estimates of risk and expected returns. These new estimates can produce optimal portfolio by the well-known Markowitz mean-variance optimization algorithm. If the investor does not have any views on his asset classes, the Black-Litterman optimization model produce the same portfolio as the market portfolio. What if the subjective views are incorrect? A survey on reports of stocks performance recommended by securities analysts show very poor results. Therefore the incorrect views combined with implied equilibrium returns may produce very poor portfolio output to the Black-Litterman model users. This paper suggests an objective investor views model based on Support Vector Machines(SVM), which have showed good performance results in stock price forecasting. SVM is a discriminative classifier defined by a separating hyper plane. The linear, radial basis and polynomial kernel functions are used to learn the hyper planes. Input variables for the SVM are returns, standard deviations, Stochastics %K and price parity degree for each asset class. SVM output returns expected stock price movements and their probabilities, which are used as input variables in the intelligent views model. The stock price movements are categorized by three phases; down, neutral and up. The expected stock returns make P matrix and their probability results are used in Q matrix. Implied equilibrium returns vector is combined with the intelligent views matrix, resulting the Black-Litterman optimal portfolio. For comparisons, Markowitz mean-variance optimization model and risk parity model are used. The value weighted market portfolio and equal weighted market portfolio are used as benchmark indexes. We collect the 8 KOSPI 200 sector indexes from January 2008 to December 2018 including 132 monthly index values. Training period is from 2008 to 2015 and testing period is from 2016 to 2018. Our suggested intelligent view model combined with implied equilibrium returns produced the optimal Black-Litterman portfolio. The out of sample period portfolio showed better performance compared with the well-known Markowitz mean-variance optimization portfolio, risk parity portfolio and market portfolio. The total return from 3 year-period Black-Litterman portfolio records 6.4%, which is the highest value. The maximum draw down is -20.8%, which is also the lowest value. Sharpe Ratio shows the highest value, 0.17. It measures the return to risk ratio. Overall, our suggested view model shows the possibility of replacing subjective analysts's views with objective view model for practitioners to apply the Robo-Advisor asset allocation algorithms in the real trading fields.

• Asia Marketing Journal
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.83-110
• /
• 2010

Dissatisfied customers may express their dissatisfaction behaviorally. These behavioral responses may impact the firms' profitability. How do we model the impact of self regulatory orientation on emotions and subsequent customer behaviors? Obviously, the positive and negative emotions experienced in these situations will influence the overall degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the service(Zeelenberg and Pieters 1999). Most likely, these specific emotions will also partly determine the subsequent behavior in relation to the service and service provider, such as the likelihood of complaining, the degree to which customers will switch or repurchase, and the extent of word of mouth communication they will engage in(Zeelenberg and Pieters 2004). This study investigates the antecedents, consequences of negative consumption emotion and the moderate effect of attribution processing in an integrated model(self regulatory mode → specific emotions → behavioral responses). We focused on the fact that regret and disappointment have effects on consumer behavior. Especially, There are essentially two approaches in this research: the valence based approach and the specific emotions approach. The authors indicate theoretically and show empirically that it matters to distinguish these approaches in services research. and The present studies examined the influence of two regulatory mode concerns(Locomotion orientation and Assessment orientation) with making comparisons on experiencing post decisional regret and disappointment(Pierro, Kruglanski, and Higgins 2006; Pierro et al. 2008). When contemplating a decision with a negative outcome, it was predicted that high (vs low) locomotion would induce more disappointment than regret, whereas high (vs low) assessment would induce more regret than disappointment. The validity of the measurement scales was also confirmed by evaluations provided by the participating respondents and an independent advisory panel; samples provided recommendations throughout the primary, exploratory phases of the study. The resulting goodness of fit statistics were RMR or RMSEA of 0.05, GFI and AGFI greater than 0.9, and a chi-square with a 175.11. The indicators of the each constructs were very good measures of variables and had high convergent validity as evidenced by the reliability with a more than 0.9. Some items were deleted leaving those that reflected the cognitive dimension of importance rather than the dimension. The indicators were very good measures and had convergent validity as evidenced by the reliability of 0.9. These results for all constructs indicate the measurement fits the sample data well and is adequate for use. The scale for each factor was set by fixing the factor loading to one of its indicator variables and then applying the maximum likelihood estimation method. The results of the analysis showed that directions of the effects in the model are ultimately supported by the theory underpinning the causal linkages of the model. This research proposed 6 hypotheses on 6 latent variables and tested through structural equation modeling. 6 alternative measurements were compared through statistical significance test of the paths of research model and the overall fitting level of structural equation model and the result was successful. Also, Locomotion orientation more positively influences disappointment when internal attribution is high than low and Assessment orientation more positively influences regret when external attribution is high than low. In sum, The results of our studies suggest that assessment and locomotion concerns, both as chronic individual predispositions and as situationally induced states, influence the amount of people's experienced regret and disappointment. These findings contribute to our understanding of regulatory mode, regret, and disappointment. In previous studies of regulatory mode, relatively little attention has been paid to the post actional evaluative phase of self regulation. The present findings indicate that assessment concerns and locomotion concerns are clearly distinct in this phase, with individuals higher in assessment delving more into possible alternatives to past actions and individuals higher in locomotion engaging less in such reflective thought. What this suggests is that, separate from decreasing the amount of counterfactual thinking per se, individuals with locomotion concerns want to move on, to get on with it. Regret is about the past and not the future. Thus, individuals with locomotion concerns are less likely to experience regret. The results supported our predictions. We discuss the implications of these findings for the nature of regret and disappointment from the perspective of their relation to regulatory mode. Also, self regulatory mode and the specific emotions(disappointment and regret) were assessed and their influence on customers' behavioral responses(inaction, word of mouth) was examined, using a sample of 275 customers. It was found that emotions have a direct impact on behavior over and above the effects of negative emotions and customer behavior. Hence, We argue against incorporating emotions such as regret and disappointment into a specific response measure and in favor of a specific emotions approach on self regulation. Implications for services marketing practice and theory are discussed.