A Study of the Differences among Representative Investment Strategies

Abstract

This study compares the differences and efficiencies of investment strategies among anticipative and adaptive models using three representative decision approaches: the static approach (SA), semidynamic strategy (or re-assess by static approach, Re-SA), and dynamic programming (DP). We show that each approach has individual merits and weaknesses. A DP strategy may allow for relatively aggressive decisions because of opportunities to adapt the decisions later. However, that strategy may result in a serious downside risk. The suboptimal adaptive strategy, Re-SA, acts as a good proxy for the DP strategy. Therefore, both SA and Re-SA are important tools for addressing asset allocation problems