Portfolio optimization of bank credits with interval returns: Empirical evidence from Iran
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.15(4).2020.05
-
Article InfoVolume 15 2020, Issue #4, pp. 49-68
- Cited by
- 635 Views
-
218 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Bank credit is one of the main sources of spending on productivity and economic services. However, because of the limitations in its amount, accurate planning is essential to optimize its allocation to applicants. Despite the total volume of credits allocated to the agricultural sector, as well as the large number of applicants and sub-sectors applying for these facilities, there is still no clear pattern for the optimal allocation of agricultural bank credits in Iran. It is bank managers who must decide on the distribution of financial capital in a competitive environment. Based on this fact, the paper investigates the optimum portfolio composition of the Agricultural Bank credits in accordance with optimistic, pessimistic, and collaborative strategies by using an interval non-linear multi-objective programming model and considering three different states in determining the rate of return using a genetic algorithm. The results showed that the current pattern of the distribution of bank credits is estimated as different from the optimal one. In the optimum patterns estimated in all states, the agriculture, agricultural services, animal husbandry, aviculture and greenhouses sections were assigned the largest shares in their optimum portfolio combination. Managers can choose their desired model according to three studied strategies and depending on the importance, different estimates of return, and risk of each of them.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)C02, G11, G15
-
References21
-
Tables22
-
Figures1
-
- Figure 1. Relationship between historical average returns and expected interim returns according to economic conditions
-
- Table A1. The amount of facilities paid to different sectors
- Table A2. The returns of different sectors during a six-year period (%)
- Table A3. Upper and lower limit of returns in different states (%)
- Table 4. Normality test
- Table 5. The contribution of each sector to the objective function 1 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 1
- Table 6. Summary of optimal results in objective function 1 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 1
- Table 7. The contribution of each sector to the objective function 2 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 1
- Table 8. Summary of optimal portfolio results in objective function 2 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 1
- Table 9. The contribution of each sector to the objective function 3 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 1
- Table 10. Summary of optimal portfolio results in objective function 3 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 1
- Table 11. The contribution of each sector to the objective function 1 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 2
- Table 12. Summary of optimal portfolio results in objective function 1 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 2
- Table 13. The contribution of each sector to the objective function 2 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 2
- Table 14. Summary of optimal results in objective function 2 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 2
- Table 15. The contribution of each sector to the objective function 3 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 2
- Table16. Summary of optimal portfolio results in objective function 3 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 2
- Table 17. The contribution of each sector to the objective function 1 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 3
- Table 18. Summary of optimal results in objective function 1 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 3
- Table 19. The contribution of each sector to the objective function 2 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 3
- Table 20. Summary of optimal portfolio results in objective function 2 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 3
- Table 21. The contribution of each sector to the objective function 3 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 3
- Table 22. Summary of optimal portfolio results in objective function 3 of the genetic algorithm in Mode 3
-
- Agarana, M. C., Bishop, S. A., & Odetunmibi, O. A. (2014). Optimization of banks loan portfolio management using goal programming technique. International Journal of Research in Applied, Natural and Social Sciences, 2(8), 43-52.
- Aryanezhad, M. B., Malekly, H., & Karimi Nasab, M. (2011). A fuzzy random multi-objective approach for portfolio selection. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 7(13), 12-21.
- Chang T. J., Yang S. C., & Chang K. J. (2009). Portfolio optimization Problems in Different Risk Measures Using Genetic Algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(7), 10529-10537.
- Dubinskas P., & Urbšienė L. (2017). Investment portfolio optimization by applying a genetic algorithm-based approach. Ekonomika, 96(2), 66-78.
- Eletter, S. F., Elrefae, G. A., & Yaseen, S. G. (2010). Neuro-based artificial intelligence model for loan decisions. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 2(1), 27-34.
- Gouveia, M. C. B., Neves, E. D., Dias, L. C., & Antunes, C. H. (2018). Performance evaluation of Portuguese mutual fund portfolios using the value-based DEA method. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 69(10), 1-26.
- Hao, F.-F., & Liu, Y.-K. (2009). Mean-variance models for portfolio selection with fuzzy random returns. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, 30, 9-38.
- Jao, Y. C. (1971). Linear programming and banking in Hong Kong.
- Kamali, S. (2014). Portfolio optimization using particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithm. Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science, 10(2), 85-90.
- Khalifa H. A., & ZeinEldin R. A. (2014). Fuzzy programming approach for portfolio selection problems with fuzzy coefficients. International Journal of Scientific Knowledge, 4(7), 40-47.
- Kuwornu, J. K. M., Ohene-Ntow, I. D., & Asuming-Brempong, S. (2012). Agricultural credit allocation and constraint analyses of selected maize farmers in Ghana. British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade, 2(4), 353-374.
- Lai, K. K., Yu, L., Wang, Sh., & Zhou, Ch. (2006). A Double-Stage Genetic Optimization Algorithm for Portfolio Selection. Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Neural information processing, 928-937.
- Lester, A. (2019). On the Theory and Practice of Multifactor Portfolio. The Journal of Portfolio Management Quantitative, 45(3), 87-100.
- Lv, L., Zhang, B., Peng, J., & Ralescu, D. A. (2020). Uncertain Portfolio Selection with Borrowing Constraint and Background Risk. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020, 1-14.
- Metawa, N., Hassan, M. K., & Elhoseny, M. (2017). Genetic Algorithm Based Model for Optimizing Bank Lending decision. Expert Systems with Applications, 80, 75-82.
- Mohagheghnia, M. J., & Shirgholami, M. (2013). Optimal bank loan portfolio in Iranian’s banks (based linear programming modelling). Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(2), 98-107.
- Monsef, A., & Tabatabay, S. M. (2013). Optimum allocation of the bank resources and consumptions using linear planning technique: evidence from Gavamin bank in Iran. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 3(10), 322-334.
- Orlova, E. V. (2020). Decision-Making Techniques for Credit Resource Management Using Machine Learning and Optimization. Information, 11(3), 144.
- Roodposhti, F. R., Chavoshi K., & Saber E. (2014). Optimization of portfolio Constituted from mutual funds of Tehran stock exchange using genetic algorithm. Quarterly Investment Knowledge, 3, 217-231.
- Tlig, H., & Dakhli A. (2014). Fuzzy quadratic multiobjective portfolio selection model: a possibility approach. International Journal of Computer Science Issues, 11(2), 56-62.
- Wu, X. L., & Liu, Y. K. (2012). Optimizing fuzzy portfolio selection problems by parametric quadratic programming. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 11, 411-449.