where Σ
−
� Σ − Σ
+
and Σ
+
denote a diagonal matrix with the
same diagonal as Σ, σ
i
(Σ) is the ith largest eigenvalue of
matrix Σ, and
σ
Σ
is the mean of eigenvalues of Σ, and the way
to identify the best pair (λ
1
, τ
1
) can also be found in Maurya
[23].
2.2. CVaR. For financial assets or portfolio, VaR refers to the
greatest possible loss over specific holding period, at a
certain confidence level 100(1 − α)%, α ∈ (0, 1). If the cu-
mulative distribution function for return Y is F, VaR can be
defined as
VaR
1−α
� −F
−1
(α).
(3)
As we know, compared with VaR, a key advantage of
CVaR is that CVaR satisfies the four coherence axioms of
Artzner et al. [35], whereas VaR is not coherent. e def-
inition of CVaR is as follows:
CVaR
1−α
� E −Y | − Y ≥VaR
1−α
. (4)
Evidently, CVaR
1−α
, the conditional expectation of losses
exceeding VaR
1−α
, is more informative about the tail of the
distribution than VaR
1−α
. Two popular ways to compute
CVaR without distribution constraints have been employed
recently. e first one is a linear programming model for
optimizing CVaR proposed by Rockafellar and Uryasev
[25, 26], generally called as Rockafellar–Uryasev’s approx-
imation. ey have proved that CVaR can be calculated by
solving a convex optimization problem. In other words,
CVaR can be formulated as
CVaR
1
1−α
� min
β,ξ
ξ + α
−1
E −X
′
β − ξ
+
,
(5)
where ξ is the αth quantile of Y. is method has been widely
used in many literatures (e.g., Roman et al. [12], Lim et al.
[28], and Gao and Wu [31]).
e second way is quantile regression method proposed
in Bassett et al. [27]. Xu et al. [7] have proved that it has faster
computational speed compared with Rockafellar–Uryasev’s
approximation method. According to Bassett et al. [27], the
CVaR of a portfolio return Y could be calculated by
CVaR
2
1−α
� α
−1
min
ξ
E ρ
α
(Y − ξ)
− E[Y],
(6)
where ξ is the αth quantile of Y and ρ
α
(u) � u(α − I(u <0))
is the check function, in which I(·) is an indicator function
that takes on the value one whenever its argument is true and
zero otherwise.
Since Y � X
′
β, we can have Y � X
1
−
p
j�2
(X
1
− X
j
)β
j
under the constraint 1
′
β � 1. Let
X
j
� X
1
− X
j
(j �
2, 3, . . . , p), we can convert equation (6) into
CVaR
2
1−α
� α
− 1
min
β,ξ
E ρ
α
X
1
−
p
j�2
X
j
β
j
− ξ
⎛
⎝
⎞
⎠
⎡
⎢
⎢
⎣
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎦
− E X
′
β
.
(7)
2.3. Regularization Method. To encourage a stable and
sparse solution in optimization problem, penalty item Pen(·)
is frequently used, which is regarded as regularization
method. Pen(·) is a general penalty function that allows
shrinking the components in β to zero. In this paper, we
focus on smoothly clipped absolute deviation (SCAD)
penalty proposed by Fan et al. [36] and reweighted L
1
norm
penalty proposed by Emmanuel et al. [37], since they have
oracle properties.
e SCAD penalty is formulated as follows:
λ
p
k�1
Pen
1
β
k
�
p
k�1
λ β
k
I β
k
≤λ
+
−β
2
k
+ 2ζλ β
k
− λ
2
2(ζ − 1)
I λ < β
k
≤ζλ
+
(ζ + 1)λ
2
2
I β
k
>ζλ
,
(8)
where ζ(ζ <2) and λ are tuning parameters. It is well known
that SCAD is continuous and singular at the origin, penalizes
large coefficients equally, and has no bias, and the
reweighted L
1
norm is as follows:
λ
p
k�1
Pen
2
β
k
� λ
p
k�1
ω
k
β
k
,
(9)
where λ is a tuning parameters and the value of ω
k
can be
identified by iteration method based on the value of |β
k
|.
Reweighed L
1
norm has a better out-of-sample performance
compared with L
1
norm penalty [34], since it gives every
component in β a corresponding weight so that the pe-
nalization is more accurate.
3. Model Formation
Motivated by Roman et al. [12], we consider the following
mean-variance-CVaR model:
P
mvc
:
min
β
ηV X
′
β
+(1 − η)CVaR
1−α
s.t.
1
′
β � 1
E X
′
β
� μ
0
,
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
(10)
where 0 ≤η ≤1 is a weighting parameter, which represents
the attitude that investors hold towards the two risk mea-
sures and hence balances the importance of them.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3